My Twitter posts

Sunday, March 26, 2017

A Statement About Race And Discrimination

Those who read me probably remember when I said races don't exist. Allow me to elaborate: racial differences exists, but there is no evidence some of these give clear biologocal superiority over others and there is no causal link between cultural characteristics and racial characteristics . I said race doesn't exist as it is commonly used as a discrete category for simplicity, but to be fair the concept is still used appropriately in science.

However, it isn't a discrete category as people often use it. Scientists use a more complex, specific definition. Remember when I said "What even is white or black? Where is the line?" well scientists agree:discrete categories are nonsensical. Rather, race is used to identify genetic ancestry and categorize genetic traits ( not cultural or psychological) that are likely to be bundled together, but not unlike any generalization, there is no "typical racial example", a person identified as being able to digest lactose due to their racial lineage may still be lactose intolerant. Nothing is set in stone.

There is also a  few traits that are universal amongst our species, an high intellectual and social adaptability for example. Intelligence and it's related skills do vary, amongst individuals, because it isn't a racial trait, it's a trait of our species, and even the most homologous genetic pools have individual differences. All humans have the potential to learn and adapt to any language or culture. There is no established links between your genetic make-up, your geographic location and your ability to exhibit cultural and linguistic traits and proficiency. Humans especially are known to have migrated a lot, weakening the link between geography and racial adaptations, even if most people are still at least partially adapted to their native environment regardless (pale skin is still more common and useful in countries with less sunlight for example while the opposite is true for darker skin).

Even if races didn't exist at all, it would admittedly be one of the worst argument against racism, because it implies that if races existed as discrete categories racism would be justified. Which is false, racism is bad for a whole bunch of reasons, not just because the discrete categories racists use are innacurate and an oversimplyfication of the complexity of our species genetic diversity. Racism is bad because even if the claims made by racist ideologues were true, mistreating people for what is out of their control, their genes, is unfair and a terrible injustice.

It's not simply a matter of being precise while using the concept. After all, men and women are  biologically different (same potential, different development) yet those differences can't justify sexist doctrines that treat women as objects or men like animals. That's also why transphobia is wrong: no matter what gender or sex they are, discriminating them for what is out of their control is unfair and injust. Does that mean that discrimination can be justified? In some cases, yes. We discriminate against ex-criminals all the time, a pedophile can't work with children, a murderer can't become a cop. But we discriminate based on their past individual actions, not their being, their beliefs or the actions of others sharing traits with them. That's the biggest difference.

I am homosexual and as a gay man I am forbidden from donating blood in Canada unless I become abstinent for a few years or lie. Why? Because other gay men, both in the past and nowadays had risky sexual behaviors and transmitted serious diseases between themselves. For the behavior of others, I'm being discriminated against, because we share identity traits. Now that tests are so fast and efficient, such a long abstinence period is unjustified, and why only to gay men? Why not lesbians or straight men and women? Since homosexuals are less numerous, statiscally speaking, by not asking this abstinence period to anyone else but gay men, they are placing themselves at risk of getting ill blood from those other groups, which by the single fact that they donate more blood, make them more likely to donate ill blood.  Remember, AIDS and Syphillis aren't gay males' exlusive diseases...

No, this kind of discrimination has no reason to be this specific, they should ask everyone, regardless of gender and sexual orientation to be abstinent for a certain period or not at all. Blood tests take 9 days of being infected to notice any disease now so a 14 days abstinence period for everyone wishing to donate seems reasonable to ask for.

People should only ever be discriminated  for their own individual actions. If someone you lent money to isn't paying their loan back, you probably will think twice before lending them more money the next time they ask you. You are discriminating against them, but you are justified in doing so. Plus you won't discriminate against all of the friends that you lent money too, only the ones that aren't reliable.  Racism,sexism and other ism are not justified forms of discrimination. I hope this clarify my thoughts and beliefs on the matter of race and discrimination. -KeLvin P.S: Obviously you can guess my thoughts on racial profilling and most discrimination from this post alone. I didn't mention everything because it would have been tedious.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Are anti-SJWs becoming anti-leftists? Anti-Liberals?




                  All is in the title. I'm sure you noticed that the words ''regressive left'' have left the youtube plane, and now ''leftist'' or ''liberal'' have alarmingly been  used instead by the anti-SJW youtubers. That's worrying to me. The anti-SJWs are no longer just against the fringe members of the left that are extreme in their beliefs, no , now anyone that believes ''not all X are Y'' are SJWs, anyone that like a left leaning policy or don't like ( not hate, just don't like) Donald Trump, must be a SJW. Anyone that dislike an anti-SJW must be  an SJW... that one is getting more frequent. ''You don't like Milo Yiannopoulos/Dave Rubin/Dave Cullen/Sargon of Akkad/Roaming Millenial/Millenial Woes/Naked Ape? You are just a triggered SJW!'' Anyone that trust even a little bit mainstream media, must be an SJW... right? I mean the alternative media sources like Infowars and Breitbart, or the aforementioned Dave Rubin/Cullen are just  SO reliable isn't it... Anyone that hate
Islam but NOT muslims? SJW Islamist apologist! Anyone that think libertarianism is dumb? SJW communist/socialist! Anyone that dissagree with an anti-SJW? SJW! 

This is worrying. Those people used to complain about the corruption of the left into academic SJWism but now? They are trying to poison the well and make all liberals and leftists ''Social Justice Warriors'', because when you are in a ''Culture War'' who bloody cares about nuances right? Nuances are just for cucks, right? Oh and centrists, you are all SJWs! YOU ARE WITH US OR AGAINST US, PICK A SIDE. Gosh... Fuck. Seriously, I knew the anti-SJW movement was created to fight back the extremists of the left that are dominating academia and SOME political spheres in  SOME countries... but I always thought it was uniting conservatives and regular liberals against the SJWs. However, it now seems that the movement is showing their true colors. Trump won, conservatism and  the extreme right are making a comeback, a big one, time to dump  the moderate liberals that helped us get there because they thought they were fighting extremists... not themselves. 

Yep, that's what happened, the conservatives used the liberals to get power. I'm  not surprised. Trans-exclusionary radical Feminists were using that tactic way before, allying with anti-Trans conservatives to get rid of the Pro-Trans movement... Think they would not backstab the conservatives? The same happened when conservatives and liberals united against the fundamentalist christians that were really embarassing the right not long ago. It seems the tribalism of politics get muddied whenever the two sides need to unite against an extreme going too far, but when the ''ennemy'' is beaten? Whenever side the extremists were with get their moderates of the same side to be backstabbed. Such camaraderie is touching. Well congrats, sorry moderate liberals, you helped the anti-SJWs beat the SJWs... only to strengthen the alt-right, the far right and conservatism in general. All of the right, from the most to the least moderate profited from it. Well I guess political alliances can never last eternally... sigh. Anyway, that was just some quick thought on the topic... See you next time -KeLvin

Wednesday, March 8, 2017

Trudeau's wife and him cause feminist uproar, and my general women's day opinion. Also, f**k quotas.

Sophie Grégoire, Justin Trudeau's wife, said today, 8th of March 2017, international women's day, that to celebrate this day we must also thank and implicate men like her husband, dedicated to equality between the sexes. Trudeau, in a political gesture that was immediately seen as a "fuck your policies" to Trump, sworn to invest around half a billion dollars in abortion clinics structures in third world countries (Trump having cancelled all funding of foreign charities that perform abortions in last January). All is well under the sun right? I mean there was that cringy part where Trudeau said all men should be feminists,but the charity to third world countries is nice. His wife's message is also very inclusive so who would see that as a bad thing?

Feminists. Feminists were pissed.

Following Sophie Grégoire's statements, a whole debate about men's place in the fight for equality ensued. Many argued that, sure , "male allies" are important, and should be thanked for their work, but not on women's day, because reasons. Wait what?  Yeah, apparently equality is all about working separately from men. Putting them aside.  I mean, Canada's government certainly understood that, as a feminist gesture, only female deputees were allowed to ask questions and speak today in the Chamber. So stunning. So brave.
Such bullshit.
What a ridiculous uproar too. Include men in the celebration of the advancement of women's rights? COMPLETE MADNESS! Sigh.

Feminists also accused Trudeau of not doing enough for women. Of not imposing job and political quotas, which they so much desire. Ladies, he's one of the only male politicians in North America to have declared himself a Feminist and the only prime minister to have forced a gender and racial quota on his cabinet, and he invested A LOT on women's services since his investiture, what else does he need to do to show he's on your side? Darn feminists, you give them a hand, they rip your arm off.

About this women's day, I think it's stupid. First of all, there is already a whole women history month and you need another day? Wtf. Why not claim this is women's year while you are at it?  Oh wait. I think they already did that one year... You don't see me asking for "international homosexual day" , and for good reasons: it's stupid, pointless, and doesn't actually encourage equality. I said it before, insisting on pointing out differences only make prejudices stronger, not weaker. If you keep saying women are special flowers in need of extra care and support, you already show that equality isn't the goal.

I see this day as a day for companies to make advertisments targeting women heavily, and a day of free propaganda for feminism. "Everyday is men's day, can't women have a day (and whole month) dedicated to them!?!?!" well isn't that sexist in itself? If you think that everyday is men's day, and that we must concede some days to women, you are doing some sort of calendar gender segregation. Wouldn't it be more equal to say that men and women should share all days? Giving women days imply that they are unable to coown the year with men. That they aren't their equals.  This is just like black history month all over again...

A small word on what the feminist propaganda go on about the most this time of the year: quotas. Fuck quotas. There is nothing about equality in this. If you force the government or private companies to hire a certain percentage of women or people of certain skin color, sexual orientation or religion, you force them to discriminate. Plus isn't it insulting to those these quotas are made for to learn they were hired because they needed people with their identity to fill a checklist? If I was affected by a quota, I would worry I wasn't hired for my skills but because of my identity. How degrading. Plus if the intention is to lower discrinination and racial/gender tensions, quotas aren't the way to go. How do you think people that aren't targeted by these will react if they don't get a job? Instead of thinking they simply weren't fit for the job, they will start to think " Maybe it's because of the quotas. Maybe it's because I'm not [Race/Gender] and they were...". You can bet those left behind by the quotas would start to resent those the quotas were made for. It would only be a superficial equality, under the appearances a lot of hate would be stirred and started. Encourage women into fields that were traditionally masculine, sure, force that , no.

Also speaking of fields of work, why is it always about women going into traditionally masculine jobs like construction worker, politics, firefighter, STEM fields or police officer, why do we never encourage men into traditionally feminine jobs? To me, the underlying message is that traditionally male jobs are more worthwhile hence why more women in these is necessary... Kinda sexist to say the least. "Female" jobs like teacher, nurse, secretary, organizer, maid, childcare educator are all important, yet they rarely get the same respect and renumeration as some "male jobs" despite equal importance.

Plus, there is also prejudices against men when they go against the norm. Especially for male chilcare educators. Many parents are wary of a man taking care of preschoolers, despite statistical evidence showing a female educator is much more likely to abuse their child, if only because they are more numerous. This prejudice of "all men that want to take care of children must be pedophiles and women are better at it anyway" is incredibly sexist toward both genders. I think encouraging men in typically female fields would also be a good step for equality. Yet you will never see feminists advocating for more male childcare educators or female sewer workers. It's almost as if feminists are a bunch of elitists that only care about women in politics or jobs that grant enough prestige and money to grant political power to implement policies advantaging their little group... Hmmmm. Anyway, that's all for today. See you next time! -KeLvin. 

Saturday, March 4, 2017

The "Skeptic community" and the "New center"

"Conservatism is the new counter-culture"- Paul-Joseph Watson.

Edgy huh? Yeah I laughed and cringed at that too. Though, it is worth thinking as to what could have made him believe such a thing.

The answer is simply the rise of the right, and more importantly of the alt-right.

Regular conservartives, the religious, anti-gays, anti-abortion, anti-anything-that-use-taxes-because-it's-"socialist" kind have lost much of their superb since the beginning of the millenium.
The abortion debate in most western countries, even in the U.S have been pretty much settled, and now cause much less uproars than before.
Homosexuals rights (and trans rights, to a lesser degree) have made significant progress, most countries have adopted laws authorising the civic mariage of same sex couples, with the U.S being unfashionably late as always on the matter ( better late than never).
As of policies, despite the different governments in the western world, it can't be denied that most countries have added or modified social programs in the last decade that helps more than ever the poor and needy, rarely lowering taxes and if they did, it usually was capital taxes, which affects mostly the entrepreneurs and wall street enthusiasts.

Slowly, over the course of a decade, conservatives numbers have dwindled.  They came to be seen as silly and dated, the internet helping spreading the claims and thoughts of their most crazy members. Who remembers when youtube atheism vs christianity was a big thing?  I do, it was a time when conservative christians uncapable of reason were the butt of jokes and memes. But as the counter arguments to the religious crowd are always the same, and that their influence wasn't as big as it used to be... Many turned to more interesting targets of ridicule, namely radical leftists and radical right-wingers. Why target the more tame topics brought up by the average liberal/conservative when the internet created a platform to let the crazies band together to shout louder than anyone else? Obviously those were targeted too by the aforementionned youtube atheists (and bloggers too), but those conspiracy theorists and infowars fans were not very different to christians in terms of rebuttals: the same way they could never disprove the existence of God, they couldn't disprove the truth or lack thereof of those conspiracy theories. It was a matter of faith, a pointless crowd to reason with, akin to speaking to a wall. It get boring.

The new Social Justice Warriors and what would become the Alt-Right were now much more interesting targets. While trying to convince the members of such groups is almost a lost cause, given the levels of ideological faith those people have, responding to them could still matter, since most people that didn't align aren't too far down the rabbit holes, and can still be reasonned with.

Those knights of reason would soon be known as "skeptics" and then "the skeptic community". Detached from the old atheist movement( though many were still atheists themselves) those men and women were quick to say that they were skeptical of anyone claims that seemed unfounded: may they be religious or political, regardless of affiliations. While a noble goal indeed to cast doubts upon people claims and beliefs regardless of who and what, the reality became rather different. Skeptics couldn't resist aligning themselves, weither openly or not, with one side or the other. It wasn't an instantaneous process either, it took time.  People that were reasonnable and making good arguments against the craziest of ideologues, slowly became ideologues themselves. You probably seen those internet personalities that spoke against SJWs in a great fashion, but, after a while, seemed to have gone farther and farther to the right, Dave Rubin come to my mind with his "new center" oddly filled with far rights personnalities and ideas. The same thing happened in reverse, people opposing the far right became far leftists themselves, Steve Shives is a good example, he joined Atheism+, what I would call one of the defining moments that divided the atheist community into the skeptics and Atheists+.

When Watson said that conservatism is the new counter-culture he meant that the "new conservatism", the Alt-right, was. And as it is pretty much the opposite of Social Justice, you could say it's the counter-culture/ideology to that. Social Justice itself claims to be a counter-culture, which it also is. Both are extremes that the average individual consider too intense in their ideological beliefs to consider. While most people will probably consider themselves right or left, and thus agree on some small points with those groups, they don't associate themselves with them. General culture isn't as left or right as they think. There may be more intolerance toward racism and sexism, but there is also more tolerance of xenophobia, with the fear of immigrants, and double standards, with the tolerance of sexist double standards against men.

Not all is white and black, most is grey. So yes, they are counter-cultures, counter to a culture of reason, compromises and skepticism. Many of the skeptics aren't as skeptical as they used to be. How many skeptics only attack one side of the political war? How many claim that their political beliefs are without question right? Too many, unfortunately.

This reality has not gone unchecked, people online are aware of this shift, and now use the term skeptic with some scorn and contempt. As of this "new center"  as Rubin called it, it's a group of far right leaning individuals claiming to be the true skeptics, not unlike the failure that was Atheism+. Those people, those so called centrists, recommend you listen to people such as LibtardAmerica, a woman that say such outrageous things, like that women should be publicly beaten under certain circumstances, or that we need a strong patriarchy, that i wonder if she's not just an elaborate troll, instead of the abysmal cretin she looks like. They also recommend folks like, Paul-Joseph Watson, who gives us that quote from the beginning, and also works for infowars, a website that is infamous for their crazy conspiracy theories and anti-science attitude. Let's not forget about Steven Crowder the unfunny right wing comedian so bad at reporting other right wing reporters thinks of him as a cretin, Lauren "laurent" Southern, who constantly misrepresent reality and said that we need to return to traditions and Milo "very young boys" You-no-predator-I-am that is so controversial in all he does and says ( like his support of very traditionnal gender roles or his claims that gay men are smarter than straight folks but going extinct because of gay rights) that claiming he is a centrist is the joke of the century.

Clearly reason and skepticism have become a rarity lately, which is unfortunate. Now, no one can express skepticism without someone trying to guess if they are the "right" type of skeptic, either a "new centrist" or an Atheist+ intersectionnal feminist, so they can choose if they are "real skeptics". A real skeptic can be of any political allegiance, those asking skeptics to choose don't understand the meaning of skepticism, however to remain one, a skeptic must have enough honesty and introspection to doubt their own beliefs and claims. It isn't easy, for sure, but it's a necessity, those so called "culture wars" between ideologues rarely answer important questions, rarely produce results. Like I did before, I make a call for calm, reason, open-mindness and compromise. Remaining with a broom up our asses because we aren't willing to concede points to the adverse camp won't help any of us and will only lead to ever increasing tensions. Let's sit down and act like the adults we should all strive to be. -KeLvin