My Twitter posts

Saturday, September 9, 2017

Sex with trans people: is it transphobic to not be willing to try it? The reality of sexual attraction.

         I'm gay, as such, I'm attracted to men. My type of guy is of the strong and hairy archetype: I love beards, body hair and somewhat chubby or muscled guys. I had sex with men before , both as a top (the one visiting) and bottom (the host, preparing a pleasant interior for his visiting friend). Recently, we've all seen Riley Dennis' videos on the topic of sexual attraction to trans people. Riley is a trans woman, and claims that not wanting to sleep with transgender people that transitionned to the gender you are attracted to, is transphobic. Is she right?

Well, I'd say it depends. If your repulsion comes from the fact they are trans rather than their appearance or personnality and you would consider them attractive if they were not trans then you might be a little bigoted.

Maybe you do find them attractive, but the only hurdle for you is that they are not "post-op" that is that they didn't have surgery to create genitalia of their transitionned to gender. That one can be more understandable, if you are a gay man that is exclusively bottom for example, a trans man with a vagina might turn you off, not in terms of sexual attractiveness but sexual compatibility. There is nothing bigoted in this, we often see it in cis gay men, two bottoms or two tops try to get together and it doesn't work. Happens. But if you are , to keep with my example, a gay man and top or versatile, then what is stopping you?

"I don't like vaginas, I like penises"
But do you?
When I go on pick up or dating sites, photos of dicks rarely turn me on. Every guy has one, and most people are average there, nothing exciting for me. I'd much rather know if they are hairy, bearded and not skinny, as that is what attracts me more than anything. As for sex... A hole is a hole as some bisexual says. I wouldn't fuck a woman's vagina, because I'm attracted to men, but would I fuck a man's vagina? Sure, why not? I'd be willing to try it if the trans guy is my type. As for now what I said applies mostly to gay male sex, but the logic holds for just any combination.
Straight men: What do you find more attractive, an hairy bearded FtM with a vagina, or a very female looking MtF with a penis?
As for me, I know my answer.
Women, lesbian and straight: what is more important, intimacy and attractiveness, or matching genitals together?
I know my answer there too.

People are quick to say they are attracted to men or women as a whole, but they are first and foremost attracted to secondary sexual characteristics: body hair, boobs, beards, voice, face shapes, body shapes, height... And when you think about it, it makes sense, genitals are more often than not the last part of someone's body you'll discover, so being more attracted to vaginas than boobs or butts would make no sense. 

This was just a short dose of common sense, try to stay open minded about trans sex. Trans people are people too, you could be missing out on something and someone great. Who knows? -KeLvin

Tuesday, August 8, 2017

The Google memo: politics in the workplace

I wish to be a teacher. An university philosophy professor to be exact. It will not be easy, there is some competition for teaching positions and the university workplace is known to be rather elitist: if you aren't famous for your work, your actual talent might not be enough. It's cynical to say, but true nevertheless, that universities see your pedigree before your CV. It's especially true for more renown ones. Oh sure you are first of your class, teachers said you are a genius and so on... But your master is unknown to all but those teachers, you never published anything that became viral, you have no relevant connections and you are not popular enough to cause awe in the university's donors/sponsors so nevermind. The sad reality of higher education teaching is that it is more about politics than degrees, the more people you know, and the more people that know you, the better your chances. Legacy privileges are not just for students I'm afraid. So of course, having political opinions that match those that could become your colleagues or employers help tremendously, it's almost a requirement in some fields, like political science. If you do disagree, and still want to persevere to become a professor, then it's probably best to keep it quiet until you are in a position where it would be less risky to speak up. It goes without saying that not all universities have the same biases or level of biases but most of the time keeping your controversial opinions to yourself is the better approach in any workplace, not just universities.

...Which brings me to James Damore, the "Google memo guy". In a move that can either be considered bold or reckless, Damore criticised his workplace, colleagues and superiors, for not being, in his own opinion, open enough to diversity of ideas, focusing too much on physical diversity of races and genders.
In the 10 pages memo (can we even call it a memo then? More like a manifesto) he goes on and on about a few topics, but the main message, after you take out all the fluff, seems to be "Google should treat people more as individuals,not as members of a race or gender, and be more open to discuss ideas from other political perspectives than the one Google already approves of."

I can't say that I disagree, seems reasonnable... What did he dislike?
Well he mentions classes reserved to specific genders or races and other racialized or gender divided practices. I didn't get Google reasons for this, but if it's just for diversity's sake, then yes it seems wrong. I don't know though. He also says that conservative or center views are shamed at Google. Can't say if that is true, but if it is... Shameful and unsurprising, that's how it is in any workplace, left or right leaning.

The part where most media outlets and twitter aficionados seems to focus is the multiple pages where he rant about how Google "refuse to recognize that biological differences in men and women could explain the gender gap in tech". While I don't think it's systematically wrong or sexist to point out that men and women are ,on average, different, I do wonder why it is relevant here. Damore wanted to call out the lack of ideological diversity, so why lash out at this specific leftist belief that biology doesn't influence men and women careers in tech?  It seems oddly specific. There is also an implied assumption that most of the gender gap could be due to biological differences, which hasn't been shown to be true, and not so implied assumptions that the left reject biology in favor of feelings. He makes assumptions about what he thinks are the left/right biases, opposing them, for example he says the left is idealist, the right, pragmatic.

This shows more his biases than anything though, because none of those opposed traits applies only to one side: both sides can be idealistic, pragmatic, open or close minded, open to changes or affraid of them, etc. His notes at the end of pages where he mentions communism, IQ, and what he consider himself politically all point toward a strong right leaning bias. I mean he claims to be a classical liberal... We all know how much "liberal" those that use that label truly are... Just look at internet political celebrities Sargon of Akkad and Dave Rubin who both used that label, despite frequently supporting right wing leaders and policies like Trump and the trans ban in the military. Those are liberals? Really? He might be different but I doubt it somehow. He also claims political correctness is a tool of the "left PC autoritarians" which I couldn't disagree more. Political correctness happens in any political circle, the content that is sensitive just vary according to the group. Conservatives hate to talk about secularism or how stupid many traditions are, Libertarians hate to admit what good taxation can bring, Trump supporters hate discussing his shortcomings. Saying only leftists are embarrassed and upset by certain topics is disingenuous.

His sources are not all stellar as well, some are old, not very convincing, from newspapers... You get the idea.

Do I think like many have claimed that he is against women and minorities in tech, that he consider them biologically unfit for the job and is a racist and mysoginist?

Eh... Yes and no. He obviously didn't say that they are unfit, claiming he did is a blatant lie and people should really read it thoroughly before throwing accusations of mysoginy at him, but his insistance on pointing the average psychological differences between men and women in a post about why Google should have more ideological diversity is suspicious. Plus, despite him saying "on average", it does feel like he is generalizing, if there are women interested in tech, and this is outside the average interest for women, then why should we assume those women fit the average for their personalities then?
Seems like cherry picking to me.

Anyway, I think that despite having a good message about inclusivity of ideas in the workplace, he handled it very poorly.
First of all, because he rambled so much about women in tech and the biological differences between genders, his message was lost in this flood of random assertions with not enough evidence to support his claims. This can be easily demonstrated by the news coverage this event got, his memo is called an anti-diversity memo, and every google employee under the sun is calling him a sexist mysoginist. He also lost his job because of that biology part that Google claims reinforce gender stereotypes. I guess that's kind of true? I mean  biological averages are indeed stereotypes... Regardless if they are true or not.

Google says that the part about openness to new ideas from different ideological perspectives is indeed fair criticism of their policies and work environment and that they will do something about it, they made it clear it was his ramblings on biology that got him fired. ( Here if anyone is interested. Third fact. There is also the full PDF to download there,not just retranscriptions.)

The reason I mentionned my career choice earlier is simple, if you like your job , but not the political leanings of your colleagues and superiors, keep it quiet, gauge how much open some of your colleagues are to different political opinions and express your concerns with those closest to you. Don't publish a manifesto. If you really want to write down your grievances, then be focused, otherwise you won't get your point across. If you are really upset/worried and there is an HR (Human Ressources) department, go there to explain your issues with the company policies, see their point of view on the matter. They will appreciate your honesty and love that you didn't make a scene and decided to keep it private. Bad press is not the best way to garner sympathy in any company.

On a closing note, what do I think of  practices such as affirmative action that "reverse discriminate" in favor ethnic minorities and women?
Well I don't like the idea of it, but I get that there is not many ways to fight discrimination... I just wish we didn't fight fire with fire . I'd say "why not focus on getting rid of prejudices instead of doing this condescending practice that reinforce the notion minorities and women can't do as well as white men without getting forcefully favored."... But since we can't really force people to get rid of their prejudices and something still need to be done... I'll say it's a tolerable practice in the meanwhile, at least until we find a better solution. However, I think it need to fit two criterias to be adequate.

First, it need to remain positive discrimination to fight negative discrimination. What I mean is that you should think this "our jobs are open to all, we will just give priority to some CVs to fight our biases" not "this job is for women and minorities only, white men need not to apply". The latter is just adding discrimination, it's not helping to remove it.

Secondly, the requirements must not be lowered for all to help a minority or group to pass or just for them and keep them high for everyone else. This one should be obvious. How inferior must you think women and minorities are that they can't pass the same requirements as white men? Whenever I see examples of this, it makes my blood boil, when people talk about "soft bigotry" that is what they are referring to.

Thank you for reading and see you next time! -KeLvin

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Yes Lauren Southern is racist, sorry June

Sooo... I didn't think I would be writing this but I am getting worried for June (many of you know her as ShoeOnHead, or you know, ArmoredSkeptic's daught... I mean girlfriend). She is a sweet girl, I like her and find her videos entertaining and all. But lately she's been defending Lauren Southern awful tweets so much, you start to wonder if A:she knows what Lauren believes and preach about, B:If June herself agree with her (I don't think so) and C: if June is just too affraid to call out a friend when she says stupid shit online.

For those who don't know, Lauren Southern is a Canadian right wing online personality. She got herself known for her work at Rebel Media, a conservative online media site with a youtube channel. She did for them "journalist" work (she basically just traveled somewhere in the u.s, rarely Canada, where there was a leftist protest or antifa/black lives matter protest happening to complain about them, counter protest, like with the slut walks, and play the victim, like with antifa. She also traveled in Europe for them to rant about immigration and muslims.)

Lauren got popular very fast, from unknown in late 2015 to a very known name in the online politico-sphere of youtube in 2017. I guess it's because she's a charismatic young pretty blonde woman with very traditional views. That seems to seduce a lot of conservatives for some reason; I mean it's almost a meme that female right wing pundits are often blonde pretty women. 
Along the different people that contributed to her fame, by making video collabs with her or interviews, there was ShoeOnHead, June. They made a funny video joking about the fact many people wanted to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she has a vagina. From that point on, anyone following these two can see that they are friends, or at least very friendly acquaintances. 

Earlier this year, in March, we learned that Lauren left Rebel Media.  There was rumors that she was pressured to leave for having dissenting opinions, in particular regarding race, with her bosses and co-workers

However, those are just rumors, I don't know if they have even an inch of truth. It's likely that Lauren pressured or not would have leaved anyway eventually, given she's a rising star for the alt-right (which June defended her of not being before, but Lauren doesn't really hide that, so June ceased to claim she isn't alt-right lately) and that the Rebel Media crew is apparently not right wing enough for many of their Southern loving fans. Just google "Lauren Southern quit/leaves Rebel media" and on the first page you get altright.com, alt-right reddit boards, the dailystormer and stormfront and a bunch of similar sites all praising her and ranting against "Jewish Rebel Media".

Of course her having the support of white nationalists doesn't mean, de facto, that she is one herself, that wouldn't be fair of me to say that. So that's why I prefer to add her videos and tweets to the evidence pilling up to support the theory that she is at the very least racist, if not outright white nationalist. 

Recently, Lauren made two very controversial videos, one titled: "the streets of Paris" and one titled: "the Great Replacement".  Both of which caused twitter shitstorms. Let's start with the "the streets of Paris"

That video is a silent video of her walking with her camera turned on in what seems to be the poor neighborhoods of Paris. Unsurprisingly for a metropolis the size and scope of Paris, that poor area seems to have, at least if you only take Lauren's shots on the place for evidence, a majority of non-white residents, some of which seemed Muslim. The juicy bit is not the video, I mean it's silent, even if the implications are... Questionable, it's not very shocking, no the fun part start in the description.

The part saying " the women were not wearing their hair in French braids" does sounds a bit racist to me. "She was just joking/using it as an example" sure, whatever. She does seems to be joking a lot about those kinds of topics eh?

Anyway, moving on, Southern says in that description that the migrants are replacing the French people. Which is exactly the theme of the next video, "The Great Replacement". A video where she used the ideas of Renaud Camus, a man infamous in France for his extreme right and racist views. He has as much mainstream relevance as a potato. Marine le pen is seen to the left of him. Seriously.
The idea of the great replacement is so simple it's childish really "the colored folks are erasing the whities" oups sorry should have said "the cultural French" or some bollocks like that. 

Yes, the veil is thin, anyone with a brain and basic knowledge of the extreme right must have noticed it's an euphemism for the terms white genocide, that ridiculous idea that because white people are doing mixed marriages and have less kids than the overall black, latino or asian demographic that this somehow constitute a genocide. Last time I checked, white people were neither actively castrated or killed, so how is this a genocide? Would you also call the diminishing population of birds due to global warming a genocide? Preposterous. Plus it's not a replacement if the previous population remains you dummies. Can't even get their bloody racist terminology right for fuck's sake.

But if all of this wasn't enough, there is Defend Europe. What is that you ask? Basically Lauren's way of pretending she has any real political impact beyond fap material for edgy kekistanis. More seriously, it's a project for which she raised thousands of dollars for. The Defend Europe project is all about using a ship to stop "NGOs pretending to use rescue ships for rescues from practicing human trafficking and smuggling migrants from Africa into Europe."
Yeah I did not just make that up. Southern and co think NGOs that rescue migrants risking their lives crossing the sea are actually smugglers. Of course she has no evidence. To her credit, there is surely a few boats out there that while hired by a NGO are probably doing smuggling instead of rescuing, that is bound to happen, but I doubt it is to the scale she claims it is. Plus, you can't just know from a glance which ships are smuggling and which are rescuing if you go with the base assumption that they are targeting big NGO ships, so them blocking any ship is just hindering the work of legit rescuers more than the smugglers. 

Despite succeeding for their test run, they probably won't do it again, Patreon removed both Southern and her project from the site. Jack Conte, CEO of patreon, explained very clearly why they did it: Lauren's actions were putting other people lives at risk. "But they just blocked the ships, they didn't shoot them or anything!" you might say, and while true, remember that those are rescue ships, the people they just rescued might be severely dehydrated, famished or sick, they need urgent medical attention, so any delays for these ships could mean people could die. (Plus Lauren was shown a while back shooting signal rockets at migrant boats. That could have harmed someone.). 

Lauren and her clique claims those aren't rescue ships but human traffickers. True or not, the people on the ships were probably sick or dehydrated, and still needed medical attention. So there's that. 
It isn't Lauren's right to choose who enter Europe or not, if border enforcement let those rescue ships in, smuggling or not, she can't intervene. If she's so concerned and have evidence of specific ships being used for human trafficking, why don't she just report them to the authorities? Oh wait I know why! It's because it isn't as glamorous to just report it, she wants to be in the center of attention, doing shit herself. Silly me. 

Then there is her book.
I read it.
It's titled "Barbarians: How baby boomers, immigrants and Islam screwed my generation" since I'm in my early twenties as so is Lauren, I guess she meant I was screwed too huh?
The title alone hints at her real views, and oh boy that the content doesn't disappoint! While short, it was both hilarious and painful to read. I swear at one point she wrote that liberals want abortions for women pregnant of nine months! You can't make this shit up!
She also said really, really awful stuff. 
For example she said the comparison between immigration and a bowl of skittles with a handful of poisonous ones was "too flattering" so she compared them to gummi bears that gives you constipation or diarrhea (it isn't clear). How charming. 
She also spent a good chunk of that book selling herself as some sort of conservative martyr that stood up against the tyranny of left leaning university and college professors. She makes herself looks like a vulnerable, yet strong willed individual who opposed evil close minded and biased leftists. I had similar feuds with a leftist teacher myself (and I am also a leftist) but I can tell you that her stories look as fake as her hair. She tries to guilt trip her audience by saying stuff like "I used to believe this left belief, but now I know better" and using that false martyr narrative again. She used Jordan B Peterson a bit too. His theories about correlating intelligence and personality types to political alignments in particular. Oh and she compared the millennial generation (so mine and Lauren's) to "French bulldogs bred to be useless,almost incapable of procreation with comically big heads". The book in general is full of hasty generalizations, and view many groups as more extreme than they are (all the left is SJW to her it almost seems) or just plain wrong. I didn't touch the chapter on Islam for a reason. 

So Lauren Southern is quite the character. She might be a super nice person if you meet her face to face, but her views definitely are racist. I am sorry if this offends you, but I can't just use an euphemism like intolerant or close minded, she is racist. There is no word that describe her views and actions better than that one. Well that and bigot maybe. 
I know it might be hard to admit if you like her or are her friend, but hey if even family members can have terrible views, what makes you think your friend can't?

So yeah, Lauren Southern is racist. It's not an exaggeration, I am not using the loosely definition used by SJWs, I am using the standard one. I will probably talk about Peterson next time, he is also an interesting character. See you next time -KeLvin

Saturday, June 24, 2017

The Apathy of Sloth: Never Again.

Been a while. Sorry. Been thinking a lot lately, about politics, sure, but also love, relationships, the idea of the divine, the concept of justice, life.

I have come to a few realizations.

First of: stop waiting. I realized all I did all my life is wait for my life to become great and happiness to fall on me. I waited for school to end, maybe after it I would be happy with the freedom I thought adulthood would bring. I waited after relationships to just happen, maybe I would get friends or even love, just by waiting. Why put the effort? People scare me way too much isn't it? Even now, I'm waiting, working a job I hate in hope the future gets better, in hopes I just stumble upon a better job. I waited all my life, I longed for things without never acting for them. I was slothful. I was lonely.  Everytime something great happened to me it was because I took some initiative, and did something for myself or others.

I don't want to be slothful or lazy anymore. I always wanted to help others, to be proud about myself, I always wanted to be more courageous to compensate for all those times I should have stood up to injustices and bullies. I don't want to be silent anymore, I don't want to be miserable.

I long for justice, in a world such as ours, justice always seems out of reach: the powerful that do wrong never get punished, those that deserve happiness because of their hard work get crap and misery. I realized that I probably cannot change the world alone, that is obvious of course I knew that already, but I didn't realize that to change the world I got to start with my own. If I help others around me, if I make the world of others a better place by being there for them, then it will make a difference. If you don't get help or support when you need it the most why would you lend a hand to others in your life that are in trouble? This cycle of indifference must end, and there is no other way than to just give, give away. Will I be abused and used like I already was? Probably. But for all those that won't use me, for all those that genuinely benefited from my presence, It will make a difference. My parents had it rough, they taught me to never trust anyone but myself... But if you never trust anyone, how can you expect anyone to trust you?

I also learned... Living for yourself alone is a sad existence. I want to live to please others, to make others happy and fulfilled. That would bring me joy and pride.

What's the point of sailing the ship of my life if I am alone operating it and I got no destination? I was a lost ship, drifting on the tides of the sea of life, waiting for them to bring me to my destination... No longer will I let the current take me away. I'll take back the helm of my boat, and set course wherever I need to be, may it be for myself, or to help someone in need.

I get why I don't have much friends, what do I have to offer to them? Self pity? My apathy? I wouldn't hang with me neither... I may not be the most interesting or funny friend someone might have, but I'm loyal, and trusting. I care. How terrible was I to let others suffer because I was too busy waiting for my own happiness... I could have helped them, and they could have helped me. That's what friendship is all about isn't it? A trusting relationship where you know you can count on each other.

As of love... Well it's very much the same isn't it? I longed for it, yet never thought I should be giving something in return, I can't just receive it, that's not how it works. And if I want someone to trust and love me, I'll have to be loving and trusting first, there is no other way.

I also realize that even though I don't believe in god that it doesn't mean I should not have faith. I should have faith in myself, in my loved ones, in my hopes and dreams. Plus sometimes the coïncidences of life are just so good or bad, I don't think it hurts to just think: maybe this is how it ought to be, maybe this is a sign from the universe from me to myself.

As of politics... I realized that I am an individualist, not in the "only the self matters" way but rather I refuse to separate people originality and uniqueness into little racial, sexual, ideological or religious boxes. I understand why people do it. It's reassuring to think we got it all figured it out, that all men are pigs, all women are nice but manipulative gold diggers, that all whites are egotistical and racist bigots, that all blacks are thugs, that all Christians are uneducated redneck bigots, that all Muslims are dangerous terrorists in the making, that immigrants, migrants and refugees are leechers and monsters here to rob our riches and destroy our cultural values and traditions... I refuse to see individuals as such. It's easy to blame what is different or foreign, much harder to blame ideas or ourselves.

Take the migrant and ISIS crisis... By listening to people you get the impression all muslim migrants are terrorists and bad people, corrupted by a misogynistic isolationist religion to destroy our world... Except that's only a minority. What about all of those that come to the West because they are afraid of the radicalism in their home country?  Those that integrate and are productive essential members of our society? Are they to blame too? For what others that share a simple belief that was pushed to the extreme do? "If the U.K/U.S didn't accept muslim migrants, immigrants and refugees, there would be much less terrorism". Is it though? What about my country, Canada? We receive lot of muslims here, and it rarely cause troubles, even less often terrorist attacks. Heck in my province of Quebec, in many smaller communities, the Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Protestants and other religious groups share the same communal church. The imam drink beers and eat with the priest and the rabbi. They coexist peacefully. It's not impossible you know. By turning our backs to muslims, we are only doing ISIS bidding, after all the whole smuck behind ISIS existence is about a prophecy telling them the West hates them and want to get rid of them, so they should unite all Muslims and get rid of us before that happens...  By rejecting the moderates and shuning them, you make them consider ISIS words "maybe they do hate us all. Maybe we are doomed if we don't take action..." I use they to alleviate the text, I don't mean you personally do it, I just think this attitude, this refusal to try to understand each others is what is powering ISIS.

I decided, I won't let myself be fooled by rumors and fearful claims. I want the truth, and I want peace, we are not going to get that by fighting each others over the actions of the real culprits of crimes, injustices and wars that we scapegoat on each others.

Basically if you must remember one thing today, may it be to not remain passive. Don't let time, and your life, slip between your fingers. The sands of time are limited, you shouldn't waste them.

This has been rather enlightening to me. I hope it was for you as well. Or maybe im just an arrogant pompous philosopher? Who knows. See you next time -KeLvin

Monday, May 22, 2017

What if Rachel Dolezal ''Transracialism'' was a big misunderstanding?



I know, I know, what a clickbait-y title, but I couldn't resist. Let's dive right in: what if Rachel Dolezal really does feel as she should have dark skin? ''Transracialism is silly, it implies there is neurological differences between people of different skin colors and would completely validates racist theories'' I agree with that, hence why I didn't understand Dolezal at first. I don't believe for a second she has ''the brain of a black woman in the body of a white woman''. Oh I didn't mind her doing that transition at all though! If she wants to darken her skin and changes her hair, she is free to do so... It's her life, I don't care. I just didn't like the comparison with transgender people at first, because no matter the conclusion, it was awful. 

If you think race is all social, then who cares what gender or race you identify as? Those people aren't suffering, they just want to do as they please! Which I disagree with. Transgenders have a real disphoria, they didn't choose to feel that way. It's not just a whim. On the other hand, if you give credit to the idea that both transgenders and transracials are biologically driven to feel differently from what their body is, then you validate all racist theories that claim there is actual major neurological differences between people of different skin colors. A frightening possibility. 

I didn't like either options, and felt like I was missing a piece of the puzzle. The other day I was chatting with a very close friend of mine who is a psychotherapist, and I brought that subject up, he made a very good point: how is Dolezal not just a severe case of physical disphoria? I couldn't believe I did not think of it before! When you view it without the race part, but just as a physical attribute, it all makes sense. Many people feel physical disphorias. We all know anorexia, but there is also minor disphorias, like someone with brown hair that feel like they ARE blonde, so they dye their hair to feel better. Or someone with brown eyes that is desperate to get green eyes, so they wear contact lenses... Those don't look like disphorias, but they can be. Many people get minor or major esthetical surgeries, it could be argued that those could be because of a disphoria sometimes. So my theory is that Dolezal suffer from a severe case of physical disphoria, she feels like her skin should be darker, and her hair fuzzier, so she changed her appareance as much as she could to appease her disphoric feelings. The reason most of us don't see it is merely because of all the racial politics... I bet if a psy saw Dolezal he would come to a similar conclusion. 

So, what do you think? Does Rachel Dolezal really suffer from a disphoria, but unrelated to the concept of race? Is she just nuts? Is  she just a snowflake?  I don't think so, I think she is misunderstood, and misunderstood her problem herself because of the concept of race. Anyway, that was my short realization on  the topic, see you next time!-KeLvin

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Anarchism, may it be Capitalist or Communist is Subjectivism at it's Worst

Hi everyone. Been a while. I had a little hiatus. Did not know what to write about, and talking about SJWs or the alt-right didn't feel right right now. I mean everyone is kind of sick of hearing about them... So am I. However, lately a certain group of ideologues gained my attention: anarchists. More specifically, anarcho-capitalists. Though this critique of their ideology does also apply to anarcho-communists, I will mainly focus on AnCaps to lighten the text.

So what is Anarchism?
Well,anarchists themselves will give you a variety of answers, some similar to mine, some not at all. I define it as the lack of a political system, not just the lack of government. My reasoning for this definition shall become clearer later on.

Why I oppose it?

For these reasons:
-it's unfeasable logistically and economically.
-it's extremely violent by nature
And, most importantly
-such a society is profundly unfair, unjust, and subjectivist.

I'll review all of these points in reverse order , because if I start with the roads and the sewers the autistic screeeeching will make the libertards eyes explode so hard they won't bother reading. So let's start with a less explored angle to oppose anarchism, especially anarcho capitalism: justice.

One of the most important part of living in society is justice, which in our structured political systems is pretty much always ensured by courts of justice who follow the laws. Those that breaks them are judged and punished accordingly in courts of law that are, in most cases, suppose to interpret as objectively as possible the laws who are the objective standards by which we judge law-breakers. In an anarchist state, there is no official laws. No official courts. No authorities to apply those laws. The "laws" are in the hands of the people... But everyone hold differents laws. That is the problem with such a system based on mediation and common accord without obective standards, subjectivity rules. If I use a gun to protect myself from someone who threatened me with an unloaded gun (which I didn't know) but by accident I end up shooting and injuring a bystander, who get punished for what in court? In our current societies, we know what happen, the man that made threats get charged for it, the man that injured another get judged more lightly because it was self defense, he didn't intent to hurt that bystander and was using reasonnable force against a deadly threat. In an anarchist state, there is no objective law. Sure you might hire a third party to be mediator in an AnCap society, but if that party isn't the government, and that you still need to pay that third party yourselves, how easy would it be for the richest of the two parties to buy out the "neutral" third party?

Plus, without objective laws, you rely on the judging party personnal values and beliefs to weight the most in their decision, sure you came and thought of yourself as a victim... But the third party disagree and charge you with what they consider crimes... Which they can, there is no law but the one the people decide...
Also a good question, if there is no governmental authority, who applies sentences? Who pay for them? Who pay for the jails or executions? The average person? The person that lost their case? How will they pay if they don't have enough? Will everyone pay? If so, who would want to if they don't have relatives in jail, and how is it different than a tax?Won't that private system of prisons encourage long sentences while the anarchist system encourage short sentences so the prisoner can get out fast to pay back for their sentences? Won't slavery go back to existence in such a world where justice is only what the most powerful wants it to be? How is that fair? How do you define rights in such a society? Is there even rights? Not really, laws are used to defends rights, so without laws, there is nothing to defend your rights. Don't think that a communist anarchy is better because "the group makes the justice", mob justice is as terrible as vigilantism by individuals really.  Instead of the strenght of your military and wallet, it's the strenght of your group and the approval of your peers... Social pressure either way.

In a world without laws, people to make sure others follow these laws, and courts to interpret the laws, there is no safeguards for humans' rights. You have no freedom of speech in an anarchist state.
Oh, sure, you CAN say what you want... As long as no one declare your thoughts crimes and by the power of money, guns, or a mob, manage to sentence your speech as a crime. The same can be said of any right. There is no right in a society that doesn't protect any or make objective laws or rights. AnCaps love to talk about property rights, like they are sacred or something. Well, how easy it is for one with enough power to make the rights favor them. How easy it is to erase certain rights and create some for your own gain when even the property rights are subjective in such a non system. You can declare humans as property. Declare intellectual property null or supreme. As long as you have enough power , you can impose your own laws... But if you don't have enough power, then people simply won't respect those self appointed rights, why would they? The only law of the anarchist state is the law of the jungle... Which doesn't protect any right, not even the right to live.

Which brings me to my second point. Anarchism is intrinsically violent. Given the nature of it, you need force to be reckoned with to get what you want. Whether you are a group or a rich individual, you need strenght to defend what you wish to be the laws and rights of thy lands. Mob justice... Well well all know that mobs rarely stay peaceful. As of rich individuals, they can hire mercenaries. Yay to private nukes right?  It isn't a long point but it's self explanatory enough. Our current societies aren't perfect but we only use force when we got no other options, not whenever we disagree. Anarchists that think people wouldn't act like dumb sharp teeth sheeps or rich selfish sharks for their own interests are a little naive in my opinion. But hey feel free to prove me humans are able to not jump at each other throats when there is no laws to keep them in leash...

Last point: it can't be done without destroying our civilization in the process.

Yes it is time to mention roads and sewers.

You can stop screeching now.

Okay.

Before you think "roads and sewers would be paid by whoever wants them" ask yourself this: who want to pay for it? Everyone need those, same for hospitals, jails and schools, but no one want to actually pay for all that infrastructure! 

Roads for example, let's suppose there is a company that wants to pay for the roads in and out your city and all the streets. Them buying the roads and streets means they can use them as they please: charge tolls, ban certain people (even by race or gender), limit uses, not keep it in a good state, etc.
Now let's say the company decided to ban all people like you from their streets. You have a house in that city. That house is on a street. You can't get anywhere without using one. But now you are forbidden to do so. Means you got to sell your house and move out to another city? Well the company now argue that they also own all that is on the streets... Houses included. A third party court that they paid handsomely declares so. Not that it matters. They have countless mercenaries working for them. If they want to force their self declared property rights, it won't be a problem...

Does anything in this scenario sounds idyllic? Well it does, for the company. In a communist anarchy the process is similar, but the pressuring party might be a cult or large family for example that gained many followers in your city and decided to go against you. A mob.

To me the difference between the two anarchies is simple, it's just the means to achieve control: mobs vs money. I wouldn't want to live in the anarchist jungle.

Anyway,can't wait for all the offended anarchists to yell at me. Will be fun. Thanks for reading my short thoughts on the matter. Might talk about this topic again at another time. See you next time! -KeLvin

Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Let's Talk About Donald Trump: He Isn't Fit For Office





               Soooo, I stayed relatively silent on the topic, I said before I didn't like Trump or Hillary, but that Hillary was indeed the most reasonnable choice. I didn't talk against Trump much, I expressed my personal dislike of his policies, his reputation, and actions, but I never made a case against him, despite that I am against all he stand for. So there is it.

1. Trump has NO experience in politics, and it's already showing. 

     Easy one, Trump doesn't know how politics work, he doesn't have enough experience to handle situations that would require to be delicate and cautious, he shouts and rant. He nominated upon office people that should NEVER hold positions of power, like Ben Carlson for Housing, Andrew Puzder, a fast food CEO for Labor or Goldman Sachs banker James Donovan as deputy Treasury secretary. How can people believe he's  a populist and care for the little guys after those nominations? I mean do people remember he just chose Supreme Court judges that oppose abortion and gay marriage just so he could try to attack the wins american society made on those grounds? Which brings me to number 2...

2. Trump is socially conservative on abortion, gay marriage, and was a leader of the birther, climate change is an hoax  and vaccines cause autism movements.

      Trump is anti abortion, chose Mike Pence as Vice-President, a man that funded electroshock ''therapy'' to ''cure'' homosexuality, was one of the loudest voices of the slanderous movement against Obama, claiming he wasn't born American but Kenyan, despite that he had all the paperwork to prove he was american, from Hawai to be exact? Let's be honest  birthers only said so because he is black, a white  president would never be doubted on his birth place. Trump also believes climate change is a chinesse hoax, or that it doesn't matter, he already shown his disdain of the environnment by cutting  funding for environnmental protection. Trump is also one of  the cretins that keep pushing that vaccines  cause autism or that millions of illegal immigrants  are frauding the elections, that's Infowars levels of crazyness. 

3. Trump is not for the middle class at all.

    Trump is already using his privileged  position of President to help his children's businesses or give them positions of power. He already expressed his desires to help the rich even more. He don't care about the middle class. He wants to repeal Obamacare, which despite being imperfect, helped millions of americans get access to health insurances. Most americans are for a single payer healthcare ( yes even right wingers) yet Trump isn't. He's all for money in politics, he's not ''draining the swamp'' he's feeding it. And remember that he nominated businessmen with no experience in positions  of power...

4. Trump's hatred of the media  is dangerous. 

    I'm all for making the media accountable, of making sure they don't report lies and libel people. But Trump is doing a disservice to the american people by attacking them so much. When he made his opening speech, there wasn't ''the most people on a opening speech ever'' there was less people than on Obama's speeches, so , the media accurately reported there weren't so much people. Yet Trump lied, even when presented undeniable evidence, he kept a  straight face of lies. 
  Trump shown a desire to stiffle media power in the United States. That's worrying, he banished all media that could oppose him or make him accountable from the white house, he only allowed his cheerleaders. I know the media is  biased, all medias  are, but why would the left leaning media lie about Trump now that his mistakes are so huge they need no exageration  to sound horrifying? I mean Trump chosing Steve Bannon as  his key advisor, chief strategist, should be a red flag... Bannon is from Breitbart, an extreme right ''news'' site that was cheerleading for Trump all along. Of course  such a man would encourage Trump to  destroy all leftist media... I don't know what Trump has planned for the media, but weakening folks' trust in  the media is a bad thing. The media isn't perfect, yet we need them, to at least try to keep politicians accountable, counting only on Trump's team for news from the white house is an obvious attempt at controlling information in his favor. Which, is , of course, the first step of any autoritarian: get rid of opposing voices, or even better, make people doubt them more than they doubt you. 

5. Trump is an horrible person. 

    Mysoginist, racist, xenophobic, elitist... Trump is just an  horrible person, Hillary might have been double faced, but the  only  face of Trump is so disgusting I'll rather take my chance with one of those faces, than the one Trump is showing.