actually, when i loudly throw in the faces of right-libertarians that the cops standing down would lead to riots and looting, i don't see that as a negative or a reason to argue in favour of policing or the state. i'm an anarchist, remember. what i'm pointing out is that their concept of statelessness is impossible: that real statelessness would not have the consequence of spontaneous order and people basically obeying the status quo (as though the cops are merely extraneous, unnecessary bureaucracy....), but of spontaneous redistribution of wealth.
and, i'm in favour of this.
what the right-libertarians don't understand is that the state exists to protect property rights. see, as an anarcho-communist, an actual anarchist, i don't like calling them libertarians - i'd rather just call them liberals. but, people that call themselves liberals almost universally understand the simple truth that the state exists explicitly to uphold property. not as a corollary. not as an accident. as it's primary and at times singular purpose. the state is property rights.
to argue you can have property rights without a state is incoherent.
that is my point.
right-libertarians want everything the state provides, but without a state itself. or to put it another way: they want a state, but they don't want to be taxed to pay for it.
the cops are never going to stand down, of course. but, if they did, i would expect that the looting and rioting would be temporary and fizzle out along with the inequality that exists as a function of the property that can't exist without them.
but, the looting would be legitimate. it would be a process of distributive justice.
that's what the revolution is, right?
you don't throw away the state for no reason. you throw it away because it upholds property, and property is at the root of all injustice.
what the revolution means is abolishing property.
so, how can you say there can be property after the revolution? this is counter-revolutionary, at best. but it's just status quo-ism, truly.
right-libertarians don't believe in a commons, though. they believe that the commons should be converted into private property. they'll argue that rivers and lakes and even sections of the air should be sold off, that nothing at all should be under common ownership. in fact, that's the most common answer you hear from them to the global warming issue: property rights. in their minds, if you sold all the green spaces off to private owners then those private owners would ensure the land is taken care of. if you sold the air off to private investors, they would keep it clean to maximize their investment. and, then they can sue each other over rights-infringements whenever somebody pollutes their air.
i actually have no problem with the bilingual requirement, though. actually, i would insist upon it - and argue that those arguing otherwise are just being dense. it's a functional job requirement to be able to hear cases from quebec, which means you need to be able to understand the vernacular. you simply can't do this job if you don't speak french, and if you don't realize this then you just don't understand what the job is.
the bilingual requirement is not identity politics. it's not francocentric.
it's a basic job requirement.
and, it's long past due that this is formally enforced.
no, stop. it's actually really, really outrageous for an anglophone canadian to stand there and claim that a francophone canadian is not entitled to justice in their native language. how would you feel about going up against a court that only speaks french, and only understands civil law? you'd feel like you were living in a foreign country.
this is not a serious debate. and, it's kind of depressing that there are people that think that it is.
i want to be clear as the week ends: my analysis of the polling is that donald trump has not actually made up any ground at all, but that various polling firms - no doubt in cahoots with the media - have manipulated data to make the race appear closer than it actually is. this has been done via a decision to eliminate minorities and young people from the polling results under the argument that they're less likely to vote. this change happened across the board in september; it seems to be organized. the motive is to avoid the appearance of an uncompetitive race and the low ratings such a scenario would bring.
when polling results have been released this week that include the raw data, it can be seen that the actual story is stasis since late august. the numbers have not changed. the way they're being reported has.
while i continue to believe that clinton is very vulnerable to a terrorist attack, both on account of being a democrat and on account of being a woman, as well as in contrast to trump's messaging, the recent terrorist attacks did not gain the media traction that i feared they would and consequently do not seem to have had a polling effect. a future attack still might. i also continue to believe that clinton's best strategy is to run on economic and otherwise fiscal issues, including the strength of the stock market. i also believe that she needs to focus less on winning young voters (who will likely only be swayed by marijuana legalization) and more on winning older voters.
the broad takeaway is that clinton is currently safe in at least 270 electoral votes, which means the current state of the election is to determine the size and shape of her victory.
this poll did not provide raw data, suggesting they're hiding something.
i never identified well as a capricorn. apparently, the math was all wrong and i was a sagittarius all along. i don't actually know what that means or if it fits better.
see, now we're very close to a point of agreement. i'd just question the idea that the margins cited are nearly as meaningful as suggested (especially between ohio and pennsylvania, which have often voted differently). that's the same question of demographics being predictive or not, which, remember, i largely reject.
and, i'd have to wonder aloud how anybody could agree that it is almost certain that she's going to win at least 270 electoral votes, and yet much less certain that she's going to win the election. because if that isn't a contradiction (it is), it's at least cognitive dissonance.
(independent random variables should be very familiar not just to statisticians, but to anybody with a remotely mathematical background - computer scientists, physicists, engineers. you may not have even ventured past them, if you're less theoretical and more practical.
you couldn't do this in canada - and if you could, it wouldn't really mean anything. but, given that there is ample data for states in the american election, and the unit of the state is paramount, i might suggest that the way to model elections is to assign each state as an independent random variable. this assumes that data in ohio and pennsylvania (and in any other two states) is entirely independent. and, i think this is correct.
this isn't exotic. it's textbook. it's just a different assumption. but, if anybody knows of anybody doing modelling like this, i'd like to see it.
who picked clinton over sanders? boomers.
who picked trump over the field? boomers.
who are the issues directed at? boomers.
what is the age of the candidates? boomers.
who are going to vote in the largest numbers? boomers.
here's a (not so) bold prediction: whomever wins boomers will be the next president.
hopefully, this is a last hurrah. an end of an era.
but they created this election, and it is theirs to decide.
while the battles of that generation go through their final motions, the kids are going to remain off in the distance smoking a joint and laughing about how absurd the charade is.
nobody's going to swing them. not these candidates. accept it...
you have to win boomers, democrats.
ok. i'm confident in stating i'm over it, even if i feel a little rough in the morning for the next five or six days. but, when you're sick for four days, it really feels like one big long day that never starts. you wake up, you eat, you fall asleep. repeat.
i happen to have gotten a lot of ranting in, so i could upload four separate vlogs full of rants. but, if i were to remove the ranting, there wouldn't be anything left except talking about how i'm sick. see, i try to separate my vlogs by chunks of consciousness. normally, that works by partitioning over sleeps, meaning i'll connect together several days through the property of awakeness. in this case, i basically slept for four days, so it would be consistent in a broader sense to combine them all together through the property of asleepness, even if i happen to have woken up for a few hours in between to do things like eat and rant.
i just feel that the best way to do this is to combine it all together into a single sick vlog in order to capture that experience as a single, uninterrupted whole. which means a relatively lengthy vlog for the 18th-21st (inclusive) will come up on the 29th.
there will be nightly reacts videos published as they are appropriate.
i'm retracting my statement that the polls are tightening. on closer look, i actually think we have no valid data at all.
i'm not joking. look at this:
"The sample of likely voters is modeled among registered voters (N=1,433), assigning each respondent a probability of voting based on their responses. The margin of error for the sample of likely voters is plus or minus three points."
...meaning it's completely arbitrary, and probably designed to manufacture a race where there isn't one.
listen: i get that not everybody is going to vote. but, what these companies are doing is just making shit up. what they're doing makes the polling useless.
this is my honest take on the polls recently.
can we please get a good telephone poll of registered voters that isn't full of manipulated data?
i'm not saying clinton is still winning by a big margin. i'm saying the polling is useless, and we actually have no real idea at all.
i'm not exaggerating. every single one of those polls is trash.
that's all polls, so far, for september.
how's that for cherry-picking?
what they should be doing is reporting decided voters, leaning voters and completely undecided voters separately, not pulling probabilities out of their asses.
remember: the media doesn't care who wins. well...trump is less boring. but, they just want an exciting race. they want ratings.
the effect of this data manipulation appears to be that they are removing young people and minorities from the responses, under the argument that they won't vote. which is almost like they're modelling voter suppression.
of course that's going to inflate trump's numbers....
i mean, you can't even get polled in america anymore if you're latino or black? wtf...
"these polls are going to hurt ratings, so we'll just delete minority opinions. they don't watch us, anyways."
i'm glad i live up here. i really am.
and, with that, i think i'm going to legitimately follow through on my longstanding threat to tune out, which i haven't been able to do up to this point. what's the use in analyzing cooked data?
but, get this: i've been arguing they're both racists. i may have missed the larger point. which is that the system is already racist. and, this fear that electing somebody with white supremacist support is going to be some kind of change is really just willful blindness.
they're modelling voter suppression.
i'm sure the health thing has had some negative effect. but, the reason the polls have changed is because everybody changed the way they poll at the same time. and, it does seem like collusion....
what you're missing here is a class analysis. that is, we still don't know why these words are "bad".
you'll notice that the crude words are all very german sounding, and that they start to develop a crude context around the time of the norman takeover. english is of course a german language (spoken by invading angles and saxons). the norman ruling class mostly spoke french.
so, you ended up with certain words being looked down upon because they were only used by the non-aristocratic classes. to use these words would define you that way. avoiding them was consequently of the utmost importance, to maximize social advancement.
we don't swear like dukes, or duchesses. we swear like sailors.
the flaw in jimmy's reasoning is that, if he's right, what it does is set the stage for the democrats to sweep back into power with a big tent that bleeds into the center right. think of it like this: if you put bush back in power, the end result is that obama gets elected again.
it's an algorithm that pulls the democrats further and further to the right...
there's a video on my channel where i go over this. but, bernie is absolutely right. if you see them as interchangeable (and i do, mostly), then you should let hillary become the villain. the backlash has to be against the democrats, not co-opted by them.
actually, assumptions are required to make deductions.
basic rule of inference.
there's nothing shameful with being wrong in your assumptions, either. what's important is that you state them at the start, so that the reader knows what they are.
they are, after all, assumptions. they are required. but, they are also arbitrary.
i mean, if you think that you can present to me an argument that is void of assumptions, be prepared for me to find one.
that's ok. as mentioned: assumptions are necessary. what's important is knowing where they are.
the american white woman remains amongst the most (mentally) enslaved people on the planet
while racism lingers, the actual economic system of slavery was abolished. the economic system of patriarchy (marriage) continues to exist.
it is white women that have this enforced through culture more strongly than any other women. and, you hear it if you pay attention. you see it. even amongst those who gain power as they advance through their lives.
privilege, for the white woman, is something that is taught in the private schools of the upper classes. you're born into it through wealth, but it must be taught. you don't inherit it with skin colour. and not everybody learns it.
but, to the poor white woman, the white woman born without status or wealth, those mental chains are daunting. wealth itself will not break them, it will only lead to insane decisions. that mirror must be held up, first.
bicycles are way sexier than motorcycles. sorry.
work it, bitch.
no, really.
motorcycles are gross. the exhaust is flat out disgusting, ok? in my ideal city, there would be an absolute ban.
have you ever been walking down the street and got stuck with a lung full of motorcycle exhaust? it's up there with the most disgusting things one could possibly think of.
like, falling in dog shit.
worse, is they think they're "cool".
so, no motorcycles. yuck. gross.
bicycles, on the other hand, are a workout. upper body, too. when you see somebody ride by on a bicycle, you know they exercise. you know they're in good shape. and, you'll probably get a nice smell, too.
i mean, compare smells.
a) motorcycle: exhaust fume.
b) bicycle: pheromones.
which sounds more attractive?
not everybody is going to agree with me. but, the smart ones will.
this is going to backfire, but let's say it doesn't. what does he want? a general strike?
you can't turn the clock back on abortion. you'll get riots. mass civil disobedience. the doctors will keep doing it. the marches will be unheard of.
it's always been an empty threat, for that reason.
also, it would be useful to acknowledge that the rise of all of this xenophobia is a consequence of the failure of the free trade regime, rather than pretend the answer is more of the problem.
clinton does not appear to be taking the election seriously.
she needs to talk policy. this is a stupid strategy.
when your opponent is donald trump, and you seem like the bigger clown?
it's pathetic.
hate the guy, but he's out there laying down a platform. she's avoiding reporters and calling people names.
this is starting to look more and more like 2000.
is she trying to lose?
is that it? did she win the nomination, only to hand the presidency to the republicans (who she usually agrees with more)?
forget about trump working for clinton. right now, it looks more like clinton is working for trump.
"clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right,"
"Clinton’s remarks drew comparisons to rhetoric from former failed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who pointed to the 47 percent of America that were just looking for a handout from the government."
it doesn't matter if it's true. she's trying to win an election. that means, she wants at least a couple of those people to vote for her.
"you're deplorable. can i count on your vote?"
fucking dipshit...
no. no. listen. it doesn't matter where you stand on the spectrum. it doesn't matter who you support. this is an objectively stupid thing to stand up and say in front of the press.
i had the view count disabled...
57,000? what?
i have 4,000 views on youtube, guys. that's a pretty dramatic difference. you know i have a youtube page, right?
or a bandcamp site? in the description. pinned, even.
i got about 250,000 views with my dtk account over roughly two years (and 40,000 views on youtube). i've got 50,000 k here in almost a year, but only 4,000 views on youtube. that's half as much traffic, but a tenth of the views.
i get that my vlogs may be less interesting than my music. but, i want you to go to bandcamp to listen. youtube is useless to me, as a musician.
i'm more curious about why i have 60,000 views. what are people coming here for? the political analysis?
ok, you guys know these are only sketches, right? that the real political analysis is in the videos, right? i'm not just reading things verbatim. that is where i have the really interesting discussions of things, not here.
but, on another note? you could try interacting a little bit. i don't bite. well, at least not unless you ask.
(i actually do bite :P)
no, really. 60,000 views but no comments? c'mon. let me know who you are....
i mean, i suppose i could starting posting videos here, but that would be kind of silly, wouldn't it? every day, guys. 12:30 am...
the math in the big bang theory actually doesn't add up. if the big bang happened, and nothing previously existed, then we shouldn't exist either.
some kind of explosion happened - we have the cosmic radiation. we can be pretty sure of it. but, the right reading of the theory (this is highly unorthodox) is actually that it couldn't be the sole source of matter around us, that there must have been some other source of matter.
see, we've boxed ourselves into a corner with this. we seek a beginning. but, this is a religious assumption and not a scientific deduction. we are searching for something we've already decided must exist. we're not really measuring evidence and trying to determine if there was actually a beginning or not.
again: i think that if you really look at what we know carefully, and discard all extraneous assumptions, what the evidence proves is that the big bang was not the beginning of anything, and that we must be in an open universe.
this is important in context, because it opens up the possibility that these galaxies are being dragged by something outside of the observable universe - and that was already there before the big bang happened.
listen: the dark matter isn't there. it's just the recycled ether hypothesis, anyways. einstein got rid of the ether, then it snuck back in as dark matter. whether my idea is right or wrong, the ether isn't there and it's time we came to terms with it.
i just want to clarify that when i say "open universe", what i mean is that events outside of the universe can affect events within it and not something about the shape of the universe. that was sloppy.
this is where the language comes from, but it's not at all what i mean to say. i don't mean to say that some supernatural entity is pulling strings. i just mean to say that i think there's something else physically out there, and that it may not obey the physics we understand.
these emerson polls are producing very different results. i don''t know why.
it's ivr + landline only.
the last canadian election had a company doing polling with a similar method (ivr) and with the same argument that it "reduces bias" (which is just a guess, really, and not a good one). they consistently had the conservatives five or six points higher than anybody else. and, they ended the election with the worst results.
i don't think that ivr "reduces human bias". rather, i think that what it does is it reduces the sample space and creates a distorted outcome.
their results are just widely deviant. and, i'd be careful with them.
the best polls are with human interviewers. this is very well understood.
the vlog for last weekend is done, and it's arguably not even a vlog but a film. well, i guess it can be both. 3 hours. it covers the events over the 9th, 10th and 11th. it gets a little dramatic. but it is what it is.....
i'm finally sleeping. and now i can't wake up.
whatever happened...last...
it was last week, now.
but it wired me awake.
for a week...
the sleep feels good. i'm going to let it run it's course.
again: he can win ohio & florida & nevada & iowa and it won't matter if she wins virginia.
so, yes - the polls are tightening. does that mean the regression analysis was right? no. it means people are freaked out that clinton keeps collapsing in public. this guy does everything wrong and keeps fluking out...
the situation is fundamentally different now than it was a few weeks ago. this is a different race than it was last month.
we'll have to wait and see how it stabilizes.
my guess is that trump stays roughly flat, while clinton bleeds to third party candidates. it might be enough that he can win on the split.
but, if she can convince people she's ok, it will also probably snap back in place.
i mean, the basic shape hasn't altered - the right shape is a big distance, and the tightening is the noise. if you ask people in january, you'll likely get that big lead, again. if you look at it over five years, ten years you'll see something kind of sinusoidal where the gap is usually large but sometimes decreases. it's just that this is not the right time to be falling over in public. and, if the election coincides with a period of flux, she's in for a loss.
i said previously that the only way he could win is a terrorist attack. well, ok, i'll add a second way - and that's if people become convinced that she's dying. you'll excuse me for not foreseeing that.
it's the same basic dynamic, though. she will only lose through perceived weakness.
also note that you still need to be careful about ignoring online polls, which seem to be reporting an exaggerated effect.
i posted this back at the end of july. i think it's still relevant.
i just want to point out that with ohio, i don't think it's about trade or about abortion, i think it's more about nascar - it's cultural. that's why bush won twice. most of ohio is really a southern state. this is where mccain and romney coming across as out of touch elitists hurt them, and where clinton's status as an elite hurts her. if anything, the abortion thing is going to make what should be a walk for trump a lot closer as it's going to get the vote out in the northern part of the state. but, trump wins here for the same reasons that bush did. she has a better chance in florida. but, i think you'll see the same basic dynamic assert itself on a slightly lower level. the north of florida is the south; while anti-trump feeling will likely increase turnout in the south, it's cultural affinities will overpower in ways that romney and mccain couldn't orchestrate. again: bush won florida. twice. due to recent demographic changes, north carolina is maybe a wildcard. but, i think it's a stretch to argue it's a swing state. one win in the modern era does not a swing state make. indiana is not a swing state, either. the map technically has her less than 270, but that doesn't really put the election in play. if she wins virginia, she wins. if she wins missouri, she wins. if she wins both iowa and nevada, she wins. what are the chances of none of that happening? of trump carrying 3 of those 4 states? they're not very high. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8cmUHDQyeA
the above graph was based on the assumption that trump would fall in line and essentially be the same candidate as bush.
the reasons i started thinking about a clinton landslide were two-fold.
1) the polls were careening that way.
2) trump was not following orders.
this threatened to create a revolt in the republican base that would produce a result more similar to '92 or '96.
but, clinton's health has since become an issue. it was the coughing fit last week that started freaking people out. she could barely get through the address. it probably cost her ohio.
i don't think that's going to have the effect of undoing the republican revolt so much as it has the effect of creating a similar backlash amongst democrats, or left-leaning independents. and, it may also make johnson seem more attractive to republicans that can't vote for trump.
the end result is that while the bleeding on the right might not stop, the bleeding on the left might increase, and it could in the end balance out.
the newest poll had johnson at 13 and stein at 4. they're both up. i know not to read too heavily. but, i doubt it's coincidental.
so, instead of having this situation where they're tied at 48, you're going to get this situation where they're tied at 38. and it's just going to bring us back to where we were.
i'd have to hit the history books to find a comparable situation.
but, note what i'm doing here: i'm reacting to events. i'm adjusting to evidence. i'm not making predictions.
there is some chance that you could end up with 92 or 96 after all - but with the parties reversed.
in the popular vote. of course. that would create chaos on the map.
you could end up with bizarre outcomes like the republicans winning new jersey and the democrats winning texas.
should public officials have to take periodic drug tests?
hear me out.
i should begin by stating that i would oppose this policy in the way it is usually presented, which is as a means to deny people access to help. but, this actually isn't on a libertarian basis, it's on a socialist basis. i would argue that drug addiction is a public health issue and that social services should exist to deal with it. not on the cheap, either. it's what government does.
to deny people welfare because they're on drugs is completely absurd. should they go rob a bank instead?
i have somewhat of a hazier view about whether employers should be allowed to test employees. it seems unnecessary to test a fast food worker - you'll be able to figure out fairly quickly whether it's impeding them or not. but it's probably a good idea to test a structural engineer from time to time. i'd reverse the normal logic: the more complex the job is, the more important it is that the person that's doing it is sober when they're working.
elected officials take the issue to the highest level. i think this falls into the category of public accountability.
pissing in a bottle a few times a year is hardly onerous. but, it would help us ensure that our government is being run by people that are clear-minded.
throughout history, the motive of philosophers and scientists has never been understood by merchants. we seek to understand for the sake of understanding. we seek knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
the merchant needs to put this in the context that he understands, and comes up with strange, if predictable conclusions. these conclusions always exist solely in the context of capital, of market exchange. how could they think otherwise? they is what they is.
but, the merchant can at least believe the philosopher when the philosopher explains: knowledge is a reward unto itself. the scientist would further clarify that the best way to attain knowledge is through observation.
the last time the americans elected a cripple for president, his wife ended up running things behind the scenes. it wasn't so bad, really. she was actually a pretty good president.
i'm just saying.
a lot of people think there was already a female president.
i'm not exactly a fan of bill clinton. but, he's at least to her left.
...and, bill v trump is a non-starter. i couldn't ever vote for hillary. i'd probably actually vote for bill.
i know it was always a team effort. hillary was always very influential. i get that. but, the things they disagree on are exactly my fears.
look at the policy towards russia in the 90s, for example. or the way that clinton handled iraq. he's not the hawk she is.
i would have actually liked to see him run for a third term. he would have beaten dubya. and, we'd live in a very different world. i don't think gore would have been different than bush. but, clinton demonstrated that he would have been.
it's not a perfect situation. granted. i have a pretty long list of criticisms. but, the idea that hillary may be unable to govern may actually be a good thing.
david axelrod has been very critical as well. and, note that obama himself waited until it was over before he endorsed her. i think what you're seeing is that that unity was never there in the first place, and that some people are concerned about various fundamentals.
if they thought she could win, they would wait until she wins and then worry about her stepping down. this is about not thinking she can win...
i don't know who they're thinking about floating, though. it's hard to see who they think would be better.
the reality is that biden wasn't even close in '08.
-----
Jacob Davis
It's not that if she's sick it means she's mentally unstable. It's that depending on HOW SICK she is, she shouldn't be running for President. Otherwise we might be electing Tim Kaine President. ;)
jessica
see, if the higher ups thought that was actually going to happen, they'd just let it happen. that would be workable. and preferable to kicking her out in october.
this is pretty serious.
yeah.
i've decided to finally get rid of my testicles. if i can. this is not the sex change operation, which i simply don't want to do out of sequence. it would be done by now if i could find a way to fund electrolysis, but that will likely remain impossible for the foreseeable future. i just think it's crazy to try and get a full sex change while i'm still growing chin hair. and, there's a bureaucracy in canada that is actually unnecessarily restrictive - the process takes forever and rejects a lot of candidates. i wouldn't expect to be approved pre-electrolysis. but, i can't fund the electrolysis until i'm post-op. catch-22. the rational procedure is to go on hormones for a while, get the hair removal done and then get the testicles removed with the sex change. i'm just stuck at the hormone stage for financial reasons.
but, i'm getting restless. i see no conceivable way to fund the hair removal. and, i've just been on pause, waiting, for too long. i need a way forward.
the thing is that i may be able to get the testicle removal done under ohip. i don't know yet. it's ambiguous. but, if it's conceivable, i should do it. it's a next step that could be very positive.
why now?
what i'm noticing over the last four or five days (it's been building for the last few months....) is that i'm in need of a boost in dosage for the anti-androgens. this is after i just boosted my estrogen a few months ago. i'm getting to the point where dosage boosts may begin to get dangerous. and then what?
i think i should acknowledge that i have a choice: i can boost the anti-androgens (and keep up this arms war with my body), or i can just get my testicles taken out.
if i can do the latter, i should notice a lot of positive benefits:
1) i can go off the anti-androgens altogether.
2) reduced hair growth.
3) because the estrogen i take orally will no longer be fighting with the testosterone i produce naturally, it should be more effective.
i probably should have done this years ago. but, i figured i would eventually find a way to fund hair removal and do this in the usual order. and, the testosterone suppressors were working. they're starting to fade, and i don't want to just keep boosting dosages, so i need to take a different approach.
i'm going to have to talk to some doctors.
my argument is going to be that it's a path of least harm. and, i'll have to hope that they can find a way to get it covered.
fwiw, i have no interest in kids. that has little to do with gender identity - i made that choice when i was about 12. somebody talked me into freezing sperm once, but i don't even know if it's still in the freezer. or even care.
actually, it was that doctor in ottawa that got shut down for handing out the wrong sperm. so, i may have kids out there after all.
but, i'm just not remotely interested in spending any time at all with anybody under the age of 15 for any reason. sorry.
i have to point this out from time to time. people get curious and are afraid to ask. or they make poor assumptions.
i'm a mutt in the most extreme terms possible.
dad's side:
cree, italian, jewish, french canadian. meditteranean, broadly. i can at times look overly jewish or overly italian, although i can get the marseilles look from time to time, too. the biggest marker is the nose.
mom's side:
finnish, norwegian, welsh, irish, scottish, british. celtic-norse-finnish is actually a mix found across a broad swath of eastern europe, including ukraine. it makes a strange amount of sense to label my mom's side slavic, even though there isn't any directly. whether i look more scottish or more norwegian or more welsh has a lot to do with what features my hair colour pulls out. blonde can make me look very slavic. red makes me look more scottish...
again, i'm sorry, but i'm not trying to present a false image to sell t-shirts; i'm trying to document my life as a composer for the historical record. i had a messy week. the vlogs will reflect that. if that upsets you, too bad.
but you might want to get ready for it.
real life gets messy sometimes. and, i'm trying to keep it as real as i can.
but, i also need to be clear that there is only one character here, and it's me. i'll admit that this makes things a lot easier in terms of the dynamics of the thing. but, it actually also necessitates that i open up, because that's the entire point.
when your vlog is essentially a video-based journal, it doesn't make sense to be fake. it's real or it just doesn't exist.
maybe think of it like this: most vlogs are g rated sitcoms meant to run in the after school time slot. i'm aiming more for a late night cable drama, with an older and more mature audience.
i don't really know of any parallels.
Monday, September 12, 2016
Just Being Socially Awkward
Maybe the teens don't consider weed hip anymore since it's now legal.
jessica
it's probably actually a consequence of the death of rock culture and it's replacement by various types of urban culture. it's been replaced by mdma. and the ultimate culprit is actually probably the smell, along with the delivery mechanism. i've recently seen 20-somethings popping marijuana pills, which i hadn't seen previously.
Jacob Valentin
'Death of rock culture'?
jessica
about ten years ago, actually. Jacob Valentin
What, Linkin Park?
jessica
you know, the truth is that i've never even heard any linkin park, so i don't have a witty comeback.
there will always be kids that listen to rock music. for quite some time now, they've been called losers.
go look up the lolapalooza line-up this year.
Mini Squidward
Idk with the loss of rock culture came rap culture which is probably even more weed friendly
jessica
but, white suburban kids don't listen to rap music.
the kids that would have been listening to (mainstream) rock music in my era are currently listening to techno. hip-hop is still deeply counter-culture to most white people.
Mini Squidward
as a suburban white kid, hip hop is pretty fucking huge and rock is basically dead. I don't know whatchu talking bout
jessica
so, tell me about how you identify with a form of black protest music that not only is not written for you but tends to vilify you.
you're the one that doesn't know what you're talking about.
Mini Squidward
Just because it's not my movement doesn't mean I can't respect it or find something meaningful from it.
And most mainstream rap is just party music not protesting anything and that's what's topping charts right now. White kids listen to rap more than any other genre right now from my recent high school/college experience.
Never once have I felt vilified from rap and I will listen to some of the more protest-y stuff like Run The Jewels or Kendrick. Just because they will talk about racial injustice doesn't mean they are attacking all white people.
Please don't tell me what I listen to or what my peers listen to or how we shouldn't
jessica
what i'm telling you is that you represent a small minority of people that are solely concerned about fashion and don't actually understand music.
i'd like to be sarcastic. do tell me about how you relate to kendrick lamar's treatises on blackness. tell me about how it speaks to you...
but, you don't even deny it. you admit that it's just the shallowness of marketing and the speciousness of fashion.
the reality is that most white kids your age and socio-economic status that actually understand music are listening to indie rock or folk music because that's what speaks to them and their experiences. they don't understand black culture. they don't relate to the misogyny, and the violence and the hyper-capitalist excess. that's just a demographic fact. maybe you might want to go hang out with them, instead of sitting around and pretending you're black in order to fulfill some fantasy that a bunch of corporate marketing executives stuck into your head to turn a profit.
and, don't fucking tell me what to say. i'll say what i want, and you can fuck off if you don't like it.
do you know what the right word for you is? poseur. you're a fucking poseur.
Mini Squidward
How is rap killing indie rock in the Billboard 100 yet be the minority of what people are listening to? Why are you telling ME what I am concerned about?
Here's the deal. White people read books like to Kill a Mocking Bird and it's lauded as a classic despite it being mostly about racism. People read A Child Called It and feel that kid's pain without being ever being abused themselves. People base their lives around religious texts written by people who lived long ago and drastically differently than we do today (I'm not religious personally).When N.W.A. invented gangsta rap part of the reason was to get suburban people to see how the black community felt at the time. I am not pretending to be anything I'm not; I'm just listening to what I enjoy listening to. I feel what I feel. Your hypothesis aren't necessarily truth.
jessica
rap hit a peak of popularity about ten years ago with a less than 20% market share, saturated very heavily in the black community. your logic would hold if there were only two types of music. but, a 15% market share implies that 85% of people are listening to something else. and, the heavy concentration in the black community implies that it's more like 90-95% over every other demographic; rap controls around 5% of the market share for non-black demographics.
rap's ability to climb up the charts is likewise a consequence of it's ability to dominate the black market, in a music economy that is dominated by choice. it's probably the last form of musical groupthink. whereas other forms of music are dominated by what is perhaps too much competition and too much choice, rap remains dominated by a smaller set of artists.
but, again, let's not be delusional. rap artists cannot compete with pop artists or techno artists. they are not and never have been and never will be the mainstream. further, your attempts to compare music to literature are just further demonstrating that you don't understand what music is. music is not something that you read and analyze, it's something that you feel and react to.
Mini Squidward
You can feel and react to books and you can read and analyze music, speak for yourself. People will cry after reading books and people will meticulously inspect every line of their favorite artist sings. It's art, there isn't a right or wrong way to create or admire.
And yeah pop is obviously still much more popular but I'd argue it is becoming more and more influenced by rap, you see a lot more rap features in pop songs and a lot of themes from party rap carrying over imo.
And for the market share argument I would say that yeah if you factor in people of all ages rock is more popular, you see higher streaming numbers (on internet, so typically younger crowd) being dominated by R&B/rap. And those numbers were 2 years old and I do think rap presence in young people's media has increased a good deal even in the short amount of time, even if that isn't their favorite genre when they are just listening to music by themselves. The stuff people listen to with friends and in parties is often different, and the former would dominate album sales and the latter would dominate media and what would be considered the popular music for our age. And I don't see how you use that website (assuming we're both looking at the very first result from google here since the data is the same) and then say techno is more popular when that was only at 3 percent, and we both lead off this comment thread saying rock culture is all but dead which this source would contradict. I'm just saying how I see it, and I'm the one living in the young suburban culture we're talking about. All these white girls saying rain drop, drop top, Every party I've been to is playing a good deal of rap. I see mainstream rap's influence on young culture than anything else around me right now.
jessica
i'm just going to point out that you can bring a horse to water, and leave it at that.
this is the most patriarchal song i've ever heard. she is literally reducing herself to an object to be purchased on the market as a commodity.
let's think this through...
what she's saying is that the reasons they broke up would not have applied if they were married. it's hard to understand how this is the case unless she's acknowledging that the contract is non-refundable.
chances are that if they would have broken up over something when they weren't married, they would have still broken up over the same thing if they were married.
then, she says that the male (presumably) in the song has no right to get angry, because they're not together anymore. this implies that he would have a right to get upset if they had been previously married.
how about this: it doesn't matter if a woman is married or not, she still has the right to do what she wants.
nah. that might upset advertisers. just put a ring on it. and lock the door.
ABOLISH ALL MARRIAGE.
a. coke addict. b. mental midget. c. but it's a two party system!
could this be the year? they're that bad. both of them. they really are.
sunglasses too, huh?
she'll still win.
here's the scoop: it's cocaine.
let's get some context, so i'm not confusing anybody.
i didn't die my hair red in some kind of act of protest against something. i died it red because i think i look sexy with red hair. so, let's post a few links of fiery red heads, for context.
i mean, if you saw me face to face, you'd see that. it's an issue of trying to communicate over the internet...
and, remember: i'm from the 90s.
the first awesome redhead that jumps to mind is tori amos. she rocks the red well: smart, sexy and ridiculously talented. but, also simultaneously violent and delicate. very put together, but also kind of broken. arguably the perfect representation of red headedness.
then, there is of course gillian anderson who is and will forever be dana scully. so, let's talk more about scully. again: smart. sexy. a very rational woman - she projects a lot of strength. but, she has her insecurities, too. perfect redhead.
i was a huge garbage fan in the 90s, and it's the same basic formula. the intelligence here always came out more as dry wit. she found a way to balance raw power with oozing femininity that was rare before and after her.
it's true, though: we hit a peak in the 90s. we've been slowly regressing since about 1998.
the funny thing is that i actually think that millennials would want to reverse the decline if they were aware of it. but, they actually seem to be - almost universally - convinced by the theory of progress. it's just bedrock, to them. they've been told their whole lives that things are getting better, and believe it as an article of faith, while being unable to see (and how could they? they have no context) that things are actually getting worse.
i have a math degree. i started off in physics. it might seem a little weird for me to cite the scully effect, and the way i experienced it is no doubt different than others, but her influence on me was not trivial.
when i say i reject the culture, that also means i reject the counter-culture, which is also the culture. i get this accusation from time to time that, because i don't reflect counter-cultural values, i must be some kind of faker that is really completely mainstream. what this does is set up a false binary between sanctioned culture and counter-culture, which is actually really just a choice between the culture and the culture. and, in fact, you're so brainwashed that you can't even fathom an alternative...
i actually really don't think that your "cool" emo/metal/hardcore/whatever band is any less stupid than anything you get from mass media. in a lot of cases, i think it's even more stupid. it's all designed for profit at the expense of expression or protest.
somebody that is really outside the culture will not create these kinds of distinctions, but rather reject them as illusory. what is the difference between taylor swift and evanescence? it's marketing. that's it, really. it's fundamentally the same product.
i'm less interested in what is mainstream or counter-cultural or rebellious or whatever else, and more interested in what is real and what isn't. unfortunately, for you, i may happen to be the one to burst your bubble and point out that the things you think are real are actually not.
you might expect that i'd think it's nonsense. and, you'd be right. but, it's a useful way to describe yourself in terms of being an imperfect copy of an ideal form. it's limiting, perhaps, but a decent starting point.
so, i've struggled against the designation of capricorn, broadly arguing that the fact that i'm so obviously not at all like that is just a demonstration that it's pseudo-science.
but, can you be an anarcho-communist capricorn? how absurd is that, actually? a contradiction in terms on first glance. maybe less so upon deeper analysis.
but, then, it doesn't help, anyways, because i'm distorting the form into something unrecognizable. this isn't converting a donut into a coffee cup, anymore. i'm no longer willing to acknowledge the isomorphism.
contradictions in terms aside, i like the description for it's apparent absurdity. it's a nice juxtaposition. if kind of creepy.
as an aside? it's no argument to vote for trump. she could release a statement tomorrow explaining that she's terminal. i still couldn't vote for trump. i'd be livid at democrats for picking her over sanders. i wouldn't see it as...
ok. maybe i would see it as disqualifying. but, it's less disqualifying than her opponent.
also, fwiw....google+? who uses google+? well, they may end up picking up a substantial market by default. let's get some things clear.
1) nobody reads their newsfeeds. well, not literally. but...
2) facebook has become basically unusable.
3) twitter has a character limit.
i know that people are increasingly opting towards personal messages, which was...i'm dating myself by pointing to icq. msn. fucking email? but, that's not what this is. i'm not talking to an audience of loved people. i'm broadcasting to strangers.
....and i want to write up a few lines, if i'm going to write anything at all.
the cleanliness of the interface is key. i mean, i could use tumblr, or something. it's just messy. livejournal charges. you don't want to think "she's picking google+ over twitter?", as though that's a real choice. no. my real options, given how much i type, are google+ or tumblr. and, this is just an easier delivery mechanism...
i get that most people don't like to read. but, in the long run, google+ may be all that's left standing for those that do.
i just want to be clear that my primary intoxicant the other night was alcohol. marijuana does not produce blackouts and could not have done that to me no matter how much i smoked.
i had two rockstar vodkas, 6 shots of jager and 3 bottles of beer. i also had a few puffs. no more than that.
but, it wasn't even the booze that knocked me out. i can drink that on an average night. i've done that countless times and avoided the blackout. what knocked me out was that i didn't really sleep the night before.
i go over this in the vlog, but the important thing is not to avoid alcohol but to make sure that if you are going to get drunk then you don't drink heavily on an empty stomach and don't drink heavily on little sleep.
it will build up as the vlogs from the last week publish, but when i say i had almost no sleep it's no exaggeration. well, you can see it from the last few weeks. i simply haven't been sleeping well for the last few weeks. and, in fact i've only actually slept a few hours since i got home.
again: drinking is fun. sometimes. but, drinking on no sleep is dangerous.
that was a bit of a crazy week. i think i needed it as i was getting very unproductive. this week is likely to be a lot of bureaucracy. i should be more productive in a few days.
just more victorian bullshit. just more neo-pagan revisionism.
that's not terrible, if we can find a way to see ourselves in the mirror. the problem is not that friendship does not exist, but that we continue to idealize it.
we should be approaching the idea of friendship as a myth, and seeking to debunk and understand it using the scientific method. once we've done that, we will no doubt learn that there's more to this arrangement than concentrated self-interest.
...that altruism does exist.
that it is rational.
and that a fair society can be built upon altruism as a replacement for competition.
but, so long as we perpetuate the childishness that friendship is possible, we will continue to evade a better future.
i don't care about family entertainment. fuck your family...
i mean, you want to slap an 18+ on this? go ahead. i've actually already slapped a 30+ on it...
i think there's enough options for kids, guys. if you want to shelter them, i'm frankly in solidarity with them. you don't have the right.
there's just no pretense. and no reason there should be one.
i stopped by the emergency room this morning. there simply aren't any clinics open within walking distance of where i am. why? because it's sunday.
in 2016. no clinics open. because sunday. fuck. did i wake up in an amish country or what? wtf? weirder: most of the doctors around here are actually muslims. or come from muslim places. if your day of rest is saturday, why are you booking sunday off? isn't that supposed to be one of the benefits of being diverse about superstitions? that you can get them to stagger, so somebody is always open?
as an aside, the statement:
"i couldn't go to work today, because the bible said so."
...is just about the last thing i want to hear from a doctor.
i know. what is this the fucking spanish inquisition? well, that's my point! i hear that from a doctor and the next thing i want is a waiver indicating that i do not consent to bloodletting.
fuck...
so, i went to the emergency room instead. and, i feel i'm bloody well entitled to do it, too. i at least made sure to go at what is probably the deadest time of the day: 7:00 am on sunday morning. when the drunks are cleared out and everybody else is still asleep.
i bet you think i had a terrible wait time, right? that i was there for hours and hours and didn't even get to see the...
no. actually, i basically walked right in. i was in the hospital for less than an hour.
diagnosis: it's a bruise, not a clot. that's relieving.
see, i need you to think about this. i take the amount of estrogen in a single day that women on steady birth control will take in 2 months. 6 mg is 60x the dosage in your average birth control pill. and, they say merely taking birth control is a clot risk.
so, this is something i need to be keenly aware of at all times. and, it is the actual reason i quit smoking. note that i was smoking at the bar. hence, my concern was very well placed.
but, no. it's just a series of bruises. some of them make more sense than others.
i'm going to wait until i get the mri results before i get a test, because i could end up testing for lyme disease at the same time.
this may have something to do with being sopping wet when i came to.
it might be why i got in the car.
just a guess.
great.
and, this is especially important in immigrant communities around the 905, to ensure that the kids get western values instead of the ones their parents would pass down to them.
hip-hop, as we know it (meaning the definition of hip-hop that exists), is pure capitalist brainwashing, brandished as a tool of the establishment to generate the society it desires.
hip-hop will generate the master race.
am i rationalizing?
the bruise on my ass is a scary size, now. if that was from fucking, it wasn't consensual. i'm going to the clinic in the morning to get a blood test, and check for clots.
i've never really contemplated whether rape kits can be used for possible anal penetration on a genetic male.
i wouldn't necessarily press charges. that's not exactly what i'm getting at. i know what the law says, and i support it as it is - it shouldn't be legal to have sex with a blacked out person. but, i also know how i get when i'm drunk....
the reality is that there's every reason for me to conclude i was probably all over him. i don't mean in the sense that i went across the bar to get him. i mean in the sense that...
...if somebody was in the room, they may very well have thought i was the one raping him.
i know that i'm like that. when i say i got fucked hard, that doesn't necessarily mean i was on the bottom.
i'm a girl. i fuck like a girl.
so, i mean...i can't know. i don't remember. i just don't. but, the doubt is pretty reasonable in my own mind given the evidence. i wouldn't want to jump to that conclusion.
but the bruise is out of control, too. i dunno....like i say, i never really thought about it.
i don't know how i could get the proper evidence to know whether i should pursue it or not. and, to me, erring on the side of caution means upholding the presumption of innocence.
there is only one type of person in this world.
and, that type comes in an infinite number of varieties.
if my 'rave kids like hanging out in green spaces' quip doesn't make sense to you, let me remind you that i'm from the 90s. 90s rave culture does still exist, you just need to look past the candy girls and bottle services and try and find smaller venues with more real people in them. cover last night was $10.
and, no, it's not the 90s. nobody had giant pants on. but, you get the point.
i should also clarify that i'm too young for 90s rave culture. my prime dancing years were in the intellectual dearth of the late 90s early 00s, and i lived in a town that simply didn't have the kind of scene i would actually be able to associate with from a distance.
my pants and shoes from last night are both demoed, like they've been over used heavily by some skate kids. for the shoes, it's the kind of thing that shoe goo fixes, although the pants are eaten right away at the cuffs. the pants were previously a little ripped, but it was nothing like that. i must have been running through a field or something. they look like they were for real cut up...
i'm not a fan of ripped jeans as a fashion statement. it's bourgeois.
i must have been with at least one other person, otherwise i would have vlogged. i refuse to vlog when i'm near people. but, as soon as i get walking..
see, if i had left the bar alone, i would have recorded it. even if i was too drunk to remember it, i would have recorded it. eventually. there's no exception to this, basically. it's routine. therefore, i left the bar with somebody.
i regained consciousness around 5:30ish. i have every reason to think i was probably at the bar until close to 4:00 - and i wouldn't have vlogged this, i would have just danced. i got my last shots in around 1:30, on closer inspection. the rain didn't get heavy until nearly 5:00, and i could not have gotten that wet otherwise, so i couldn't have been in the car long, either.
so, the idea that he picked me up makes sense: i was clearly out in the rain right before i woke back up. that means i was near gratiot & chene, no doubt wanting to walk home, some time a little after 5:00 am.
i probably got in the car to escape the rain. not smart, but i was blacked out, and it is at least rational. i can't imagine getting picked up on the street, otherwise - unless i thought i could hitchhike.
yes, i think he thought i was streetwalking.
the part of the night that needs to be reconstructed, then, is going to be from about 3:45-5:15. i left the bar with somebody. i must have taken a car from michigan to gratiot as i couldn't have walked that distance that quickly. then, what?
it seems that two things happened in some unknown order or connection.
1) i seem to have ended up in a park or a field or something. this is actually not particularly bizarre. we used to do campfires in wooded urban spaces during occupy. i've randomly followed hippie kids into the woods to do drugs. i've been to pagan dance parties. sometimes, people just have particularly overgrown backyards. somebody probably offered to smoke me, and i ended up with a group of people in an overgrown space. raver kids are just like that. it's just the only way that the shoes get like that - they were sitting in wet grass for at least an hour.
2) it remains obvious that i had sex with somebody, at some point.
i was just checking to see where the beaches even are around detroit, and something is coming back to me: the guy in the car said i was "up near chene park." i don't see any beaches right there. there are some on belle isle...
it's beach sand. or at least sandbox sand :o.
you know....the light, grainy stuff. you don't get that from a field or something.
i can't confirm the beach. it may have been a park.
when, after trying all day to shit, you finally get it out and your shit smells like condom lubrication. that's when you know you got fucked hard last night. i know i looked good, but i didn't realize i looked that good. he really smashed me. i really don't remember, but i suspect he will for a while :).
and, that answers that question. i still need to get a blood test. but, that's the actually concerning part about the situation.
maybe i should keep the hair colour?
:P
so, i'm pretty sure that what happened last night is that i had sex on a beach, due to the amount of sand i brought home with me and the enlarged size of my asshole. and i'm pretty sure it was consensual because my clothes are otherwise not ripped. but i don't have any memory of this at all. and i don't know why i woke up in a stranger's car rather than with the person i had sex with (i don't think they were the same person...)
i mean, i'd kind of like to know who i spent the night with. if they'd like to let me know. maybe see them again, in a state i can remember?
this is a still shot from last night, before i left.
i'm not the type to fuck strangers at all, let alone fuck them and run. the only thing i can seriously think of is that he was leaving immediately in the other direction...
the reason i don't think it was the guy in the car is that he was legitimately surprised by my penis. he could not have just fucked me.
but, i mean....
i'mma stay for breakfast. what you makin'? you know?
the situation is uncharacteristic. all around.
but, there is no question that i was penetrated last night. and rather vigorously, at that.
"i got a rubber. i can't believe you got a penis. but i still want to.."
"why am i in your car?"
"you was walking up gratiot..."
"i was on michigan last night."
"you was on gratiot."
"can you get me to the tunnel?"
"i still want to."
"listen, i don't remember getting in your car. i would normally never do that. you have to understand this."
"no, i get it. but i can't believe i still want to, even though i know you got a cock."
"how far are we?"
"it's right there...."
waking up with a bruise on your ass is a little unsettling when you have a black hole of five hours that ends in a stranger's car.
"yo. you have a penis? what the fuck?" <--- you don't want to hear that within minutes after sobering up, either.
i'm walking straight, anyways. it was maybe hard enough to leave a bruise, but not hard enough that i can't walk.
i have no memory of this.
i may have been drugged, actually.
i have no footage. last starlog is my third round of shots, about 1 am.
i don't know how i got in this guy's car, but he wasn't a bad guy. he dropped me at the tunnel, in the end. but, he was really upset that i had a penis :D
i have a black hole.....i was dancing....good time....then i'm in some dude's car, wut?
i have never woken up in a stranger's car before. honest.
i'm ok. i'm just flustered. and confused.
he says i was walking up gratiot in the rain. why was i doing that?
i'm home. safe. just confused.
Friday, September 9, 2016
communist hair, incoming.
may day! may day!
i look so much ridiculously better as a blonde. but, if i'm going out today, i'm going red.
i had a bit of a pattern: red in the fall, black in the winter, blond in the summer. i haven't been keeping up with that....
my last black job was really disappointing. black hair makes me look more masculine. if i get back into regular die jobs, it will probably be to jump between red and blonde to get that kind of faded strawberry, and various shades of orange.
my last black job was really disappointing. black hair makes me look more masculine. if i get back into regular die jobs, it will probably be to jump between red and blonde to get that kind of faded strawberry, and various shades of orange.
