this is the first part of an apparent three cd set to be released slowly over the next several months.
there does seem to be a movement towards a more sporadic, atmospheric sound over the last few records, and it's sort of flipped over, here. there's an increased use of ambience & noise, in addition to the more sombre approach, which is making the first part of this a difficult and rather inaccessible listen.
i'm accustomed to listening to very abstract sound, so when i suggest that i'm going to need a few listens to process this, it really reflects on what i'm listening to.
but, i'm not convinced that this is going to click, in the end. my initial impression is that the record ends up so glacial that it loses it's interest, and that the increased diversity in the soundscaping doesn't salvage it. but, it's hard to tell if that's going to assert itself, or if i'm going to be able to make sense of it.
lyrically, lott is also.....i knew he was a christian from the start, and that was in some ways an asset in his earliest material, but the write-up for the record is a little facile to say the least. we'll see if he gets under my skin, or not.
but, that's my first impression - this is about as abstract as pop music gets; it may have exited the realm of pop music entirely, in truth, and entered a realm of pure sound design, with what is really only surface comparisons to pop structures. while this is not a criticism on it's face, and the record may reveal something i did not hear on first listen in the long run, it doesn't sound to me like they pulled this off.
https://sonlux.bandcamp.com/album/tomorrows-i
Monday, August 17, 2020
i know the opposition will point to this as evidence that the government is in collapse, but this is reallly a potential first step in salvaging it.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-justin-trudeau-decision-1.5689890
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bill-morneau-justin-trudeau-decision-1.5689890
but, at the end of the day?
i want politicians to clearly broadcast to me that they're going to spend lots and lots and lots of money, and i don't actually care how it gets paid for, because i realize that deficits don't matter.
it's my opposition to austerity that is a vote driver, not anything to do with who pays for it or how.
i want politicians to clearly broadcast to me that they're going to spend lots and lots and lots of money, and i don't actually care how it gets paid for, because i realize that deficits don't matter.
it's my opposition to austerity that is a vote driver, not anything to do with who pays for it or how.
they've done studies on the general population and learned that the only people on the entire fucking planet that give a fuck about economic efficiency are economics students.
homo economicus does not exist, except in the classroom, where it's pushed down from the top.
so, do i think that voters care if corporate taxation is efficient or not? no.
i think that other types of arguments are likely to be more compelling, for most people.
homo economicus does not exist, except in the classroom, where it's pushed down from the top.
so, do i think that voters care if corporate taxation is efficient or not? no.
i think that other types of arguments are likely to be more compelling, for most people.
"but, rich people will just hide their money"
again - the purpose of the government is not to play the role of police officer here in confiscating wealth, it's to make the balance sheets work.
if you can hide your money, and the balance sheet works out, then fine.
but, realize that i'm also proposing very large increases in spending, meaning the state will have some incentive to track you down, to balance that sheet.
but, it's the balancing process that matters, not keeping track of and pulling in every single dollar you can find. the government is not a business. it's not accumulating capital, itself.
again - the purpose of the government is not to play the role of police officer here in confiscating wealth, it's to make the balance sheets work.
if you can hide your money, and the balance sheet works out, then fine.
but, realize that i'm also proposing very large increases in spending, meaning the state will have some incentive to track you down, to balance that sheet.
but, it's the balancing process that matters, not keeping track of and pulling in every single dollar you can find. the government is not a business. it's not accumulating capital, itself.
Raising the corporate income tax rate would reduce economic growth,
no it wouldn't.
and lead to a smaller capital stock,
ok, but nobody cares.
lower wage growth,
bullshit.
and reduced employment.
employment is determined by demand, not by taxation. if you cut taxes on consumers, you increase demand, leading to more employment. corporate tax rates are not a meaningful input variable, here.
Under a higher tax rate, some investments wouldn't be made, which leads to less capital formation, and fewer jobs with lower wages.
that's bullshit. investments are determined by projected returns, and interest rates are 0%. it's just scare mongering nonsense.
the types of arguments that i will accept have to do with waste. you could argue that corporate taxes pull in less per dollar circulated than consumption or income taxes, and be right. but, you're not really embracing mmt, if you're arguing that point, you're still thinking in terms of the gold standard. conceding that corporate taxation is less efficient, you haven't provided a reason that we ought to seek efficiency in taxation. if we prioritize other concerns, we can come up with good arguments to base the tax system on corporate profits, rather than on labour earnings, on property ownership, etc.
no it wouldn't.
and lead to a smaller capital stock,
ok, but nobody cares.
lower wage growth,
bullshit.
and reduced employment.
employment is determined by demand, not by taxation. if you cut taxes on consumers, you increase demand, leading to more employment. corporate tax rates are not a meaningful input variable, here.
Under a higher tax rate, some investments wouldn't be made, which leads to less capital formation, and fewer jobs with lower wages.
that's bullshit. investments are determined by projected returns, and interest rates are 0%. it's just scare mongering nonsense.
the types of arguments that i will accept have to do with waste. you could argue that corporate taxes pull in less per dollar circulated than consumption or income taxes, and be right. but, you're not really embracing mmt, if you're arguing that point, you're still thinking in terms of the gold standard. conceding that corporate taxation is less efficient, you haven't provided a reason that we ought to seek efficiency in taxation. if we prioritize other concerns, we can come up with good arguments to base the tax system on corporate profits, rather than on labour earnings, on property ownership, etc.
and are corporate taxes "bad"?
i don't really care about maximizing accumulation. that's not a big part of my calculation, here. they may be less efficient and create waste, but nobody really cares, except for shareholders. it's not really my problem.
i'm more concerned about determining who ought to be paying for taxes and the answer to that question is that what necessary taxation that does exist ought to come out of accumulation, not out of compensation for labour.
so, i'm not going to try to argue with economists that want to tell you this is inefficient. i don't care about maximizing efficiency in accumulation, but i do think that accumulation ought to be restricted and redistributed.
so, i would propose a system where...i'm not going to make up numbers...but almost all revenue should be coming in from taxation on corporate accumulation, and the rest should be coming from the very rich.
i don't really care about maximizing accumulation. that's not a big part of my calculation, here. they may be less efficient and create waste, but nobody really cares, except for shareholders. it's not really my problem.
i'm more concerned about determining who ought to be paying for taxes and the answer to that question is that what necessary taxation that does exist ought to come out of accumulation, not out of compensation for labour.
so, i'm not going to try to argue with economists that want to tell you this is inefficient. i don't care about maximizing efficiency in accumulation, but i do think that accumulation ought to be restricted and redistributed.
so, i would propose a system where...i'm not going to make up numbers...but almost all revenue should be coming in from taxation on corporate accumulation, and the rest should be coming from the very rich.
i'll flip that around, though - i would argue that you really shouldn't be paying taxes if you're making less than something like $100,000. so, i'd be in big support of almost no taxation fairly high up the wage scale. there's just no reason for most people to pay taxes.
pretty much the only taxation that i will actively, readily support is corporate taxation. virtually all tax revenue into the government ought to be coming from the corporate sector, not from private individuals.
pretty much the only taxation that i will actively, readily support is corporate taxation. virtually all tax revenue into the government ought to be coming from the corporate sector, not from private individuals.
it's the same thing with extending those tax cuts...
from a modern monetary theory standpoint, tax revenue doesn't actually matter. now, that's not to say i'm gung-ho about eliminating taxes, so much as it's to say that it doesn't actually matter if they do or not. the kind of spending programs i'd support will never be funded via taxation; that money has to get printed.
so, what's the point of increasing or decreasing taxes? it's really just virtue signalling...
i consequently don't really care if a politician wants to vote to increase or decrease taxes on the wealthy because it doesn't actually matter, so long as they're not then arguing to choke off the creation of new money; i'd rather support a candidate that wants to print lots of money and cut taxes than a candidate that wants to raise taxes and balance the budget.
it follows that if a politician can gain some leverage by supporting tax cuts that do not matter, structurally, then they should do so.
from a modern monetary theory standpoint, tax revenue doesn't actually matter. now, that's not to say i'm gung-ho about eliminating taxes, so much as it's to say that it doesn't actually matter if they do or not. the kind of spending programs i'd support will never be funded via taxation; that money has to get printed.
so, what's the point of increasing or decreasing taxes? it's really just virtue signalling...
i consequently don't really care if a politician wants to vote to increase or decrease taxes on the wealthy because it doesn't actually matter, so long as they're not then arguing to choke off the creation of new money; i'd rather support a candidate that wants to print lots of money and cut taxes than a candidate that wants to raise taxes and balance the budget.
it follows that if a politician can gain some leverage by supporting tax cuts that do not matter, structurally, then they should do so.
i'll remind you that i was completely cold turkey from mid-2018 to mid-2019. it was ten months....
in those ten months, there was no drinking, no smoking (anything.), nothing.
and, yes, that 26er of vodka is still in there. it's now five months, and it'll sit there for five years if nothing happens.
further, i've been posting about this now for weeks - months. i've broadcast this; you knew it was coming. when i say i have no intention of smoking tobacco ever again, there's a very high chance that i actually, really won't.
i'm not going to smoke the raspberry mixture or the peppermint tea bags in the cupboard on their own, i'm pretty confident of that. i'll get some green tea and throw it in there, and i don't expect to smoke that either (although i'm sure i'll give it a try as a caffeine boost, just to see - and i am a little worried that i'm going to take a hit of the green tea, stay awake for a week and get hooked on it. but, we'll have to experiment.). but, so long as it's in there, there'll be no reason to buy cigarettes.
and, if the edibles work well enough, i won't even need to keep the tea around at all - so i'm going to wait to buy the green tea.
i've been very, very serious about this in the past, and have gone very long periods with zero nicotine, but there's always been some reason...
there's no more reasons.
it's happening. permanently.
in those ten months, there was no drinking, no smoking (anything.), nothing.
and, yes, that 26er of vodka is still in there. it's now five months, and it'll sit there for five years if nothing happens.
further, i've been posting about this now for weeks - months. i've broadcast this; you knew it was coming. when i say i have no intention of smoking tobacco ever again, there's a very high chance that i actually, really won't.
i'm not going to smoke the raspberry mixture or the peppermint tea bags in the cupboard on their own, i'm pretty confident of that. i'll get some green tea and throw it in there, and i don't expect to smoke that either (although i'm sure i'll give it a try as a caffeine boost, just to see - and i am a little worried that i'm going to take a hit of the green tea, stay awake for a week and get hooked on it. but, we'll have to experiment.). but, so long as it's in there, there'll be no reason to buy cigarettes.
and, if the edibles work well enough, i won't even need to keep the tea around at all - so i'm going to wait to buy the green tea.
i've been very, very serious about this in the past, and have gone very long periods with zero nicotine, but there's always been some reason...
there's no more reasons.
it's happening. permanently.
i really need to get to work...i've been sitting here doing nothing for hours, for days....
i need to get back into a flow, is what i need.
i'm feeling better, i think. remember: i just came down from two months of smoking marijuana & nicotine almost every day. marijuana is not addictive, but i've been getting nic pulls, i expected that, and i have no intention of giving in, whatsoever. i'm about 48 hours from a week, cold turkey. as mentioned, things are fundamentally different now, and i'm going to be a lot more strict on myself.
so, a few months ago, i might have bummed a smoke here and there at the store, because i was going to have a few the next time i went out, anyways. that is, i had cut it down to almost nothing but was routinely having a few smokes a week. no more......
i didn't do any calls today. tomorrow.
the smell was better from about 6:00 am to about 6:00 pm, making me wonder if the primary problem is the night shift pig up there, or if the smoker is otherwise gone during the day.
it's too cold to open the window. i'll need to run the shower to try to clear the air out, instead.
i've got a bit more laundry to do tonight, too.
for tonight, i need to do some digital cleaning, and then get back to what i was doing after i eat and shower and get that laundry in. so, expect the volume here to come down a bit as i pry myself away and do something else....
you'll notice over the years that i need to sit in front of one of these devices and just for days at a time sometimes, to clear my head. i'm pulling myself back from this, for a bit. it'll no doubt happen again later...
i need to get back into a flow, is what i need.
i'm feeling better, i think. remember: i just came down from two months of smoking marijuana & nicotine almost every day. marijuana is not addictive, but i've been getting nic pulls, i expected that, and i have no intention of giving in, whatsoever. i'm about 48 hours from a week, cold turkey. as mentioned, things are fundamentally different now, and i'm going to be a lot more strict on myself.
so, a few months ago, i might have bummed a smoke here and there at the store, because i was going to have a few the next time i went out, anyways. that is, i had cut it down to almost nothing but was routinely having a few smokes a week. no more......
i didn't do any calls today. tomorrow.
the smell was better from about 6:00 am to about 6:00 pm, making me wonder if the primary problem is the night shift pig up there, or if the smoker is otherwise gone during the day.
it's too cold to open the window. i'll need to run the shower to try to clear the air out, instead.
i've got a bit more laundry to do tonight, too.
for tonight, i need to do some digital cleaning, and then get back to what i was doing after i eat and shower and get that laundry in. so, expect the volume here to come down a bit as i pry myself away and do something else....
you'll notice over the years that i need to sit in front of one of these devices and just for days at a time sometimes, to clear my head. i'm pulling myself back from this, for a bit. it'll no doubt happen again later...
cockburn's a smart analyst, and very knowledgeable about the region.
let's hope he's right.
somebody has to have the guns; these are the last regimes on the planet that you want to give the wealth to.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/the-decline-in-power-of-the-oil-states/
let's hope he's right.
somebody has to have the guns; these are the last regimes on the planet that you want to give the wealth to.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/the-decline-in-power-of-the-oil-states/
i haven't been reading a lot of counterpunch recently, but keep an eye on this site.
i think i said basically exactly this five minutes after they announced.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/kamala-harris-represents-everything-wrong-with-empty-identity-politics/
i think i said basically exactly this five minutes after they announced.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/17/kamala-harris-represents-everything-wrong-with-empty-identity-politics/
like in canada, the whole point of the politics of the left is to try to get the balance of power, so you can influence the sitting government.
that is what the ndp, the bloc and the greens are all all about - none of them are trying to win, they're all trying to get the balance of votes necessary to pass a budget, to force the government to have to work with them.
currently, the liberals cannot pass a budget without support from both the bloc and the ndp, which gives the ndp, especially, tremendous amounts of leverage.
this is the actual reason we have universal healthcare up here. ok, that's an exaggeration, an oversimplification; the liberals were pushing their own ideas, too. but, the form of what we have is a consequence of the liberals needing the votes from the ndp.
apparently, when independent-minded senators try to gain the balance of power in the united states, they get primaried by their own party.
it's instructive.
that is what the ndp, the bloc and the greens are all all about - none of them are trying to win, they're all trying to get the balance of votes necessary to pass a budget, to force the government to have to work with them.
currently, the liberals cannot pass a budget without support from both the bloc and the ndp, which gives the ndp, especially, tremendous amounts of leverage.
this is the actual reason we have universal healthcare up here. ok, that's an exaggeration, an oversimplification; the liberals were pushing their own ideas, too. but, the form of what we have is a consequence of the liberals needing the votes from the ndp.
apparently, when independent-minded senators try to gain the balance of power in the united states, they get primaried by their own party.
it's instructive.
and, what about these trump nominees?
i'll admit that i wasn't paying particularly close attention to much of the process around nominating somebody like the energy secretary.
however, if you can't stop the executive branch, why not try to gain concessions from them instead?
what i'm getting at is that aimlessly flailing against something you can't actually stop isn't a very intelligent strategy. if she had voted against these nominees, they may have sent somebody worse as replacement. by pretending that you're giving the executive branch a concession (when you're actually powerless to stop them), you're setting the situation up in such a way as to increase your bargaining power in the long run.
so, i don't know if i would have voted for or against any of these nominees, but i know that i would have tried to do something a little less stupid than kneejerking for the cameras, and trying to make a show of it.
i'll admit that i wasn't paying particularly close attention to much of the process around nominating somebody like the energy secretary.
however, if you can't stop the executive branch, why not try to gain concessions from them instead?
what i'm getting at is that aimlessly flailing against something you can't actually stop isn't a very intelligent strategy. if she had voted against these nominees, they may have sent somebody worse as replacement. by pretending that you're giving the executive branch a concession (when you're actually powerless to stop them), you're setting the situation up in such a way as to increase your bargaining power in the long run.
so, i don't know if i would have voted for or against any of these nominees, but i know that i would have tried to do something a little less stupid than kneejerking for the cameras, and trying to make a show of it.
On 1 May 2018 the IAEA reiterated its 2015 report, saying it had found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran after 2009.
so, why do we need an iran deal at all?
we don't, except to bully them into submission.
and, as mentioned, what happened was that the chinese and russians came in and said "enough of that".
so, why do we need an iran deal at all?
we don't, except to bully them into submission.
and, as mentioned, what happened was that the chinese and russians came in and said "enough of that".
would i have voted against the iran deal?
i wouldn't have voted for it. it was essentially a face-saving mechanism for obama, to hide the fact that the chinese and russians came in and saved iran's ass. there was no value in upholding it.
however, i would not have supported trump's proposals for increased sanctions, either.
i'm actually not at all concerned about iran's nuclear program. all evidence suggests that they don't have one, and that the only way they're going to start one is if we scare them into it. so, if we really want iran to not build nuclear weapons, the right way to go about it is to leave them the fuck alone.
that said, i would support anything that would facilitate the overthrow of the tyrannical iranian regime, including targeted strikes on clerical leaders.
so,
1) i don't support the obama period iran deal
2) i don't support trump's replacement
3) i do support broad disengagement, and a shift to things like a nuclear-free zone in the middle east. i'm far more afraid of the saudis than i am of the iranians, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, or weapons at all.
4) i would support popular liberation movements in iran, and may support targeted intervention, if the situation suggests it is viable.
but, do i think what obama set up was a good idea? do i think it worked?
no.
i wouldn't have voted for it. it was essentially a face-saving mechanism for obama, to hide the fact that the chinese and russians came in and saved iran's ass. there was no value in upholding it.
however, i would not have supported trump's proposals for increased sanctions, either.
i'm actually not at all concerned about iran's nuclear program. all evidence suggests that they don't have one, and that the only way they're going to start one is if we scare them into it. so, if we really want iran to not build nuclear weapons, the right way to go about it is to leave them the fuck alone.
that said, i would support anything that would facilitate the overthrow of the tyrannical iranian regime, including targeted strikes on clerical leaders.
so,
1) i don't support the obama period iran deal
2) i don't support trump's replacement
3) i do support broad disengagement, and a shift to things like a nuclear-free zone in the middle east. i'm far more afraid of the saudis than i am of the iranians, when it comes to weapons of mass destruction, or weapons at all.
4) i would support popular liberation movements in iran, and may support targeted intervention, if the situation suggests it is viable.
but, do i think what obama set up was a good idea? do i think it worked?
no.
interestingly, sinema is the youngest democrat in the senate, and won a seat that hasn't been won by democrats in decades.
i've walked down this path before, and i always find myself wondering: is this as an archetype for the future of the party?
it's a more appealing path than any other i can see, anyways.
i've walked down this path before, and i always find myself wondering: is this as an archetype for the future of the party?
it's a more appealing path than any other i can see, anyways.
if i was her, i'd take the kids out of the country and claim refugee status somewhere.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/atheist-mom-forced-into-court-ordered-christian-counseling/
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/09/atheist-mom-forced-into-court-ordered-christian-counseling/
how would i have reacted to the stupid fake "green new deal" vote?
i remember this coming up and scratching my head. sinema votes against climate action? what?
but, she explains here that it was a stand against the stupidity of the situation, and there's actually a little bit of leadership underlying the clear-thinking, no bullshit position she took around it.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/03/26/kyrsten-sinema-sides-republicans-vote-against-green-new-deal/3283607002/
she's basically right - the proposal, as presented to congress, was not remotely workable. we're 30 years past the point where we can pretend we can reverse climate change, and she knows that. spending zillions of dollars on largely unrelated social programs without addressing the actual problem isn't a serious solution, or an actual way forward.
so, she voted against the bill and co-sponsored a statement pushing for an actual useful piece of legislation instead.
i probably would have done something similar.
i remember this coming up and scratching my head. sinema votes against climate action? what?
but, she explains here that it was a stand against the stupidity of the situation, and there's actually a little bit of leadership underlying the clear-thinking, no bullshit position she took around it.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/03/26/kyrsten-sinema-sides-republicans-vote-against-green-new-deal/3283607002/
she's basically right - the proposal, as presented to congress, was not remotely workable. we're 30 years past the point where we can pretend we can reverse climate change, and she knows that. spending zillions of dollars on largely unrelated social programs without addressing the actual problem isn't a serious solution, or an actual way forward.
so, she voted against the bill and co-sponsored a statement pushing for an actual useful piece of legislation instead.
i probably would have done something similar.
do i agree with kyrsten sinema on the issues?
i live very far away, but she's been around for a while, and she seems kind of refreshingly left-wing, in comparison to the recent rightward movement of the democratic party, as a whole. i understand that she's been controversial, but i agree with almost every position she's taken, and in ways that are actually pretty profound, and because she seems more ideologically aligned with the left, rather than despite it. she's a good representation of where i stand on the spectrum, to the left of the party, as a whole.
you have to keep in mind the weird language that they use in the united states, and the confusing use of terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal'. i'd actually call her a left-libertarian, from what i can tell, in the sense that she's on the left where it really matters and in favour of individual liberty where it really matters, too - which is about where i am, as a whole, as well.
so, i mean, i grasp that a lot of fake leftists are going to look at her and recoil, but, for me, that's exactly the point - she's reacting against a movement that i don't like in broadly the same way that i am.
although i'm sure we could find things to argue about, too.
i live very far away, but she's been around for a while, and she seems kind of refreshingly left-wing, in comparison to the recent rightward movement of the democratic party, as a whole. i understand that she's been controversial, but i agree with almost every position she's taken, and in ways that are actually pretty profound, and because she seems more ideologically aligned with the left, rather than despite it. she's a good representation of where i stand on the spectrum, to the left of the party, as a whole.
you have to keep in mind the weird language that they use in the united states, and the confusing use of terms like 'conservative' and 'liberal'. i'd actually call her a left-libertarian, from what i can tell, in the sense that she's on the left where it really matters and in favour of individual liberty where it really matters, too - which is about where i am, as a whole, as well.
so, i mean, i grasp that a lot of fake leftists are going to look at her and recoil, but, for me, that's exactly the point - she's reacting against a movement that i don't like in broadly the same way that i am.
although i'm sure we could find things to argue about, too.
i think that the only other open atheist in the senate is kyrsten sinema, right?
all girl, all atheist ticket in 2024?
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/12/atheist-kelda-roys-wins-democratic-primary-for-wisconsin-senate-seat/
all girl, all atheist ticket in 2024?
https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2020/08/12/atheist-kelda-roys-wins-democratic-primary-for-wisconsin-senate-seat/
i'd suspect that chances are that if i ever ended up in the surreal and unlikely position of raising a religious child to adulthood, they would learn to avoid the debate.
the bigger question is whether i'd be able to drop it or not, and it would probably be very hard for me to do that.
i don't know; i can't say for sure that i could.
the bigger question is whether i'd be able to drop it or not, and it would probably be very hard for me to do that.
i don't know; i can't say for sure that i could.
do i think that a potential partner would be a little more willing to take the kid to church on request? what would i think about that?
frankly, when i imagine these scenarios, i always assume i'm a single parent. the reality is that i have no desire to have children, whatsoever, and don't expect i ever will.
i wouldn't expect i'd get to the point of adopting a child with a partner unless we were compatible on this. so, the right answer from my perspective is that i wouldn't raise a child with somebody that would be interested in taking it to a religious service on request; if i ever got there, it's a fair assumption that there would be no daylight between myself and the person i'm coparenting with.
that said, it's the kind of thing that may lead me to walk out on somebody, not because of the kids, but because i'd lose a lot of respect for the person. i couldn't imagine looking somebody in the eye and trying to be affectionate with them when i know they were at church a few hours ago. it would be a relationship-ending decision, because i'd just get up and walk away.
but, whatever the outcome, i would realize it's not my place to tell people what to do or what to think, even if i choose to avoid them in the future, as a consequence of their belief system.
frankly, when i imagine these scenarios, i always assume i'm a single parent. the reality is that i have no desire to have children, whatsoever, and don't expect i ever will.
i wouldn't expect i'd get to the point of adopting a child with a partner unless we were compatible on this. so, the right answer from my perspective is that i wouldn't raise a child with somebody that would be interested in taking it to a religious service on request; if i ever got there, it's a fair assumption that there would be no daylight between myself and the person i'm coparenting with.
that said, it's the kind of thing that may lead me to walk out on somebody, not because of the kids, but because i'd lose a lot of respect for the person. i couldn't imagine looking somebody in the eye and trying to be affectionate with them when i know they were at church a few hours ago. it would be a relationship-ending decision, because i'd just get up and walk away.
but, whatever the outcome, i would realize it's not my place to tell people what to do or what to think, even if i choose to avoid them in the future, as a consequence of their belief system.
ultimately, i think that if my kids decided that they wanted to go to church, i would take that as a kind of a red flag that i'm doing something wrong. what is missing in their developing epistemology that i haven't plugged in? why are they seeking faith over reason? how do i address this?
are they just curious? well, maybe we can sit down and read a book about religion together, instead.
here's a good one for that:
https://www.amazon.ca/Outgrowing-God-Beginners-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1984853910
but, i mean, you need to listen, first, and your reaction, in the end, should be with the intent to be informative without being controlling - to give them the information they're asking for, but not to try to direct them towards any specific conclusion.
are they just curious? well, maybe we can sit down and read a book about religion together, instead.
here's a good one for that:
https://www.amazon.ca/Outgrowing-God-Beginners-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1984853910
but, i mean, you need to listen, first, and your reaction, in the end, should be with the intent to be informative without being controlling - to give them the information they're asking for, but not to try to direct them towards any specific conclusion.
so, what do you do, then, if your six year old kid comes to you and tells you they want to go to church?
i'd have a talk with them about it.
i would not be willing to bring a child to church on request, but i would allow them to go with a different adult, a friend's family or even by themselves, depending on context. i don't believe in helicopter parenting; i'd have little concern about letting a five or six year old kid go to church on their own, so long as the church doesn't throw them out for being disruptive.
i would make my concerns known to the child, and explain why i don't want to go, myself. but, i wouldn't stop them from going.
i may engage them in debate when they get back, though.
i'd have a talk with them about it.
i would not be willing to bring a child to church on request, but i would allow them to go with a different adult, a friend's family or even by themselves, depending on context. i don't believe in helicopter parenting; i'd have little concern about letting a five or six year old kid go to church on their own, so long as the church doesn't throw them out for being disruptive.
i would make my concerns known to the child, and explain why i don't want to go, myself. but, i wouldn't stop them from going.
i may engage them in debate when they get back, though.
"don't you fucking tell me how to raise my kid".
fuck you.
i'm going to stand up for your kids' rights, not your authority over them, and i'll get in between you and your kids and dismantle your authority over them at every possible chance.
you have no rights over your children, no authority over them, no justification for your behaviour. clearly, your children need to be protected from you, if your attitude is that you can treat them like property.
fuck you.
i'm going to stand up for your kids' rights, not your authority over them, and i'll get in between you and your kids and dismantle your authority over them at every possible chance.
you have no rights over your children, no authority over them, no justification for your behaviour. clearly, your children need to be protected from you, if your attitude is that you can treat them like property.
this person knows the truth.
https://forbiddencomma.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/aristotle-wrong-about-everything/
https://forbiddencomma.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/aristotle-wrong-about-everything/
unfortunately, the main critic of the socratic idea of abolishing heteropatriarchy was aristotle, who was pretty much wrong about everything he ever wrote about. there's essentially nobody in history that was wrong more often, more consistently and more totally than aristotle. he's maybe the single worst source of information in recorded history.
i'm not going to call aristotle an idiot, as that's not entirely fair, although he did reject a lot of good evidence in favour of a lot of bad arguments. i blame a lot on christianity, but a big part of the problem with christianity is that it picked aristotle over plato so often, in ways that were so catastrophically harmful.
i'm not going to run through the debate, except to say that, as usual, socrates was right - and aristotle was dead wrong.
i'm not going to call aristotle an idiot, as that's not entirely fair, although he did reject a lot of good evidence in favour of a lot of bad arguments. i blame a lot on christianity, but a big part of the problem with christianity is that it picked aristotle over plato so often, in ways that were so catastrophically harmful.
i'm not going to run through the debate, except to say that, as usual, socrates was right - and aristotle was dead wrong.
it's this old platonic position to support the abolition of the family, although it's intricately tied into feminism as well, in it's rejection of heteropatriarchy. unfortunately, all i ever hear from people when i bring it up is something like i've read that socratic dialogue, but you don't really believe that, do you?
i do, actually.
i do, actually.
i would like to see stronger law enforcement around the issue, and more parents charged with child abuse for enforcing their views on their children. the rights of children to free cognitive expression take absolute precedence over the opinions of their parents; parents need to adjust to reflect the views of their children, not the other way around.
enforcing your religious views on your children is absolutely wrong all of the time. there is no valid excuse, no exception, no acceptable scenario. your children are not your property. you have no authority over them, except to protect them from harm.
and, i'd broadly support abolishing the family, altogether.
but, cases like this indicate that it is necessary to be gentle, because even the smallest disturbance could create an undesired chaotic reaction.
enforcing your religious views on your children is absolutely wrong all of the time. there is no valid excuse, no exception, no acceptable scenario. your children are not your property. you have no authority over them, except to protect them from harm.
and, i'd broadly support abolishing the family, altogether.
but, cases like this indicate that it is necessary to be gentle, because even the smallest disturbance could create an undesired chaotic reaction.
see, this is a travesty, but it indicates the difficulties in fully eradicating religion.
this person's parents did everything right in maintaining a distance, and letting their child make an independent choice when they were old enough to do so. that's responsible parenting; that's the right thing to do.
but, their child turned into an idiot, anyways.
if there was an easy answer, religion would have been eradicated by now. but, even when we do everything right, we still just can't get fucking rid of it....
https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/catholic-canada-mother
this person's parents did everything right in maintaining a distance, and letting their child make an independent choice when they were old enough to do so. that's responsible parenting; that's the right thing to do.
but, their child turned into an idiot, anyways.
if there was an easy answer, religion would have been eradicated by now. but, even when we do everything right, we still just can't get fucking rid of it....
https://www.cbc.ca/parents/learning/view/catholic-canada-mother
yeah, before the shit hit the fan, they were talking about the centrepiece of the budget being environmentally focused.
you can imagine i'm exceedingly skeptical at this point. but, let's see what they've got.
and, fwiw, i was calling on morneau to get fired months before this happened.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-morneau-clash-1.5688776
you can imagine i'm exceedingly skeptical at this point. but, let's see what they've got.
and, fwiw, i was calling on morneau to get fired months before this happened.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-morneau-clash-1.5688776
that's absurd.
you can send your kids to school, or you can home school them yourselves. the government has no legal obligation to provide at-distance learning, and the court won't create one.
who's his client, here? bill gates?
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/lawsuit-to-be-filed-against-quebec-back-to-school-requirement
you can send your kids to school, or you can home school them yourselves. the government has no legal obligation to provide at-distance learning, and the court won't create one.
who's his client, here? bill gates?
https://montrealgazette.com/news/quebec/lawsuit-to-be-filed-against-quebec-back-to-school-requirement
they stopped broadcasting again, and my guess is that they're trying to censor the following paragraph:
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
it's not the first time i've presented a statement like that, and it won't be the last. i'll support that statement to whomever wants to challenge me on it. it's the right moral statement to make, in context.
i wouldn't condemn the bombing of churches, temples or synagogues either, and i've stated as much on repeated occasions; this isn't just made up, it's a position i've spent some time with. and, i'll repeat - it's the right position to take, and the side that history will uphold, in the end.
the threats that religious congregations pose to the safety of the community are well understood, and this tendency to ignore them or otherwise take them lightly cannot be sustained. we need to recognize the harm that religion causes and adjust to it.
as mentioned, bombing them is not the most productive approach; the threat is not generally imminent, and there's usually more proportional ways to address it.
but, i will not allow you to deny the threat that a mosque or a church poses to a large percentage of members in the community, or trivialize their safety as unimportant.
maintaining a diversity of tactics is important...
now, i'm specifically pointing to the religious institutions, indicating that these people are guilty by association. ok, not all of them - there could be young kids, or people stopping in randomly. it would be a sad twist if a bomb at a mosque accidentally blew up human rights protesters - feminists, queer activists - outside. but, if you're at a mosque to worship, you are not innocent - you are willfully taking part in a system of absolutely brutal oppression. i'm not going to sign your death warrant, but i won't shed a tear for you, either.
so, by extension, bombing non-religious gatherings that are not specifically about worshiping are something i'd lean more towards condemning, but i've never seen an actual example of that. i mean, if you were to aimlessly bomb a queer dance party where people are drinking because of the ethnicity of the participants, i'm sure you'd get a rebuke from me.
but, maintaining support for a diversity of tactics is a standard leftist approach that is exceedingly relevant in context. it may seem terrible to you today if you really believe in conservative values, but from the long run and right side of history, i simply can't and won't condemn them - and you shouldn't either.
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
it's not the first time i've presented a statement like that, and it won't be the last. i'll support that statement to whomever wants to challenge me on it. it's the right moral statement to make, in context.
i wouldn't condemn the bombing of churches, temples or synagogues either, and i've stated as much on repeated occasions; this isn't just made up, it's a position i've spent some time with. and, i'll repeat - it's the right position to take, and the side that history will uphold, in the end.
the threats that religious congregations pose to the safety of the community are well understood, and this tendency to ignore them or otherwise take them lightly cannot be sustained. we need to recognize the harm that religion causes and adjust to it.
as mentioned, bombing them is not the most productive approach; the threat is not generally imminent, and there's usually more proportional ways to address it.
but, i will not allow you to deny the threat that a mosque or a church poses to a large percentage of members in the community, or trivialize their safety as unimportant.
maintaining a diversity of tactics is important...
now, i'm specifically pointing to the religious institutions, indicating that these people are guilty by association. ok, not all of them - there could be young kids, or people stopping in randomly. it would be a sad twist if a bomb at a mosque accidentally blew up human rights protesters - feminists, queer activists - outside. but, if you're at a mosque to worship, you are not innocent - you are willfully taking part in a system of absolutely brutal oppression. i'm not going to sign your death warrant, but i won't shed a tear for you, either.
so, by extension, bombing non-religious gatherings that are not specifically about worshiping are something i'd lean more towards condemning, but i've never seen an actual example of that. i mean, if you were to aimlessly bomb a queer dance party where people are drinking because of the ethnicity of the participants, i'm sure you'd get a rebuke from me.
but, maintaining support for a diversity of tactics is a standard leftist approach that is exceedingly relevant in context. it may seem terrible to you today if you really believe in conservative values, but from the long run and right side of history, i simply can't and won't condemn them - and you shouldn't either.
is secularizing muslims a type of colonialism?
no, it's a backwards argument, because islam is a system of colonialism and dominance, itself. muslims don't come here as indigenous groups, they come to take part in colonialism just like christians did centuries ago.
decolonization is dechristianization is deislamification.
it's like arguing that arresting thugs at a violent nazi demonstration is a restriction on freedom of speech. now, i'm actually going to be a little more lenient than others, but i flip it over very quickly; the idea of staying back is that you'll harm less people if you just let them do their stupid march than if you start trying to shut them down, but the moment they demonstrate the least bit of threat, that calculus evaporates. so, what you want is for the nazis to have their march lined by very stern looking leftists that have the self discipline not to initiate.
but, at the end of it, is stopping the nazis a restriction of expression? no - because they're going to hurt people, if you let them.
and, similarly, conscious attempts to separate muslims from their faith are not the continuation of a colonial process, but the undoing of one.
it's a false equivalency.
no, it's a backwards argument, because islam is a system of colonialism and dominance, itself. muslims don't come here as indigenous groups, they come to take part in colonialism just like christians did centuries ago.
decolonization is dechristianization is deislamification.
it's like arguing that arresting thugs at a violent nazi demonstration is a restriction on freedom of speech. now, i'm actually going to be a little more lenient than others, but i flip it over very quickly; the idea of staying back is that you'll harm less people if you just let them do their stupid march than if you start trying to shut them down, but the moment they demonstrate the least bit of threat, that calculus evaporates. so, what you want is for the nazis to have their march lined by very stern looking leftists that have the self discipline not to initiate.
but, at the end of it, is stopping the nazis a restriction of expression? no - because they're going to hurt people, if you let them.
and, similarly, conscious attempts to separate muslims from their faith are not the continuation of a colonial process, but the undoing of one.
it's a false equivalency.
so, have i actually been sitting here for hours and ranting about nothing?
i spent another day cleaning, trying to get my head around what the smells in here are, if it's me, if it's cleanable, etc. it seems like the pig is upstairs smoking, and she may have been up there smoking the whole time, but i actually don't think that's true, because i would have smelled it earlier. frustratingly, it's way too cold out to open the window, so i'm stuck running the fan.
i remember the logic in may being "well, it smells like a fucking disgusting ashtray in here anyways, so why not open the window?". that is, i realized that the smoke was coming from inside, upstairs, anyways.
now, i can smell it again as soon as i close the window :\.
that's fine. if we need to do laundry twice a day because the pig upstairs is too lazy to take a walk to puff on a disgusting cancer stick, she can pay the gas & hot water costs involved in it.
i tried to eat this afternoon because i was all of a sudden very hungry (i've skipped about 25 days worth of meals since mid june - not unusual for me in the summer, but it does lead to some hungry days at the end of it), but i only got halfway through it. then it was late, and i needed to shower again to clear the shit out of my hair...
it's 5:30. should i sleep?
i guess so.
if i can avoid coughing.
we'll just have to do some more cleaning tomorrow, i guess. it warms the place up, too.
i spent another day cleaning, trying to get my head around what the smells in here are, if it's me, if it's cleanable, etc. it seems like the pig is upstairs smoking, and she may have been up there smoking the whole time, but i actually don't think that's true, because i would have smelled it earlier. frustratingly, it's way too cold out to open the window, so i'm stuck running the fan.
i remember the logic in may being "well, it smells like a fucking disgusting ashtray in here anyways, so why not open the window?". that is, i realized that the smoke was coming from inside, upstairs, anyways.
now, i can smell it again as soon as i close the window :\.
that's fine. if we need to do laundry twice a day because the pig upstairs is too lazy to take a walk to puff on a disgusting cancer stick, she can pay the gas & hot water costs involved in it.
i tried to eat this afternoon because i was all of a sudden very hungry (i've skipped about 25 days worth of meals since mid june - not unusual for me in the summer, but it does lead to some hungry days at the end of it), but i only got halfway through it. then it was late, and i needed to shower again to clear the shit out of my hair...
it's 5:30. should i sleep?
i guess so.
if i can avoid coughing.
we'll just have to do some more cleaning tomorrow, i guess. it warms the place up, too.
what i want, and what all free-thinking people should want, and what left-leaning political movements should be striving for, is finding ways to convince muslims that they're wrong - that they're on the wrong side of history, that they have no future and that they need to throw the religion away and move on.
that should be the political focus, not just looking the other way at a system that is going to kill us all if we let it.
so, it's less that i want to round the muslims up and kick them out, and more that i want to support strategies to secularize them and tear them apart from their faith.
i don't really care where you're from.
but, i'd like every last muslim on this earth to reject their faith, as a means forward into the 21st century, something that's inevitable and long overdue.
i don't really care where you're from.
but, i'd like every last muslim on this earth to reject their faith, as a means forward into the 21st century, something that's inevitable and long overdue.
the biggest critique i have of multiculturalism in how it's practiced is that it tends to correlate religion with ethnicity. when i talk of post-culturalism, what i mean is breaking the connection between religion and identity and reasserting cultural individuality. this would help in minimizing the political impact of religion, as well.
we should not see ourselves or define ourselves as members of ethnic groups, by default; we should be building communities based on shared values and goals, not on where our dna comes from or what language our grandparents spoke.
i guess this goes back to not really being able to tell the difference between a political party and an organized religion; if organized religion is just another type of politics, why not accept it on it's face and adjust to more appropriate ways to congregate?
so, instead of having the arabic doctor that's forced to be a muslim because it's the family tradition, let's have doctors just be doctors, and seek out other people that have like interests, regardless of their background. let's let people be individuals, rather than statistics.
to me, that's post-culturalism, and it's the world i want to live in - not one where we split ourselves up by ethnic types, and then pretend that ethnic types have something to do with religion.
if you read the old literature on multiculturalism from the 60s, what we have today is not what they intended. they actually were aiming for a system where individuals overlapped with multiple cultures. so, they thought they'd create these weird kind of gurus that would go to yoga in the morning, say their prayers at noon and then attend a church service at night, before going for drinks with friends and waking up in the middle of a one-night stand. all of the contradictions inherent in this apparently went over the heads of those that designed this system, perhaps as a reflection of the shallowness of 60s culture. it's all just market choice, right? all about the experience. woah.
what we have, instead, are isolated tribes all plotting to assert their will on each other, and nobody intended for that or should want it to sustain itself, moving forward.
what we should learn from this is that integration and multiculturalism are actually in opposition to each other, and adjust to it, if what we want is integration and the tearing down of boundaries and labels.
we should not see ourselves or define ourselves as members of ethnic groups, by default; we should be building communities based on shared values and goals, not on where our dna comes from or what language our grandparents spoke.
i guess this goes back to not really being able to tell the difference between a political party and an organized religion; if organized religion is just another type of politics, why not accept it on it's face and adjust to more appropriate ways to congregate?
so, instead of having the arabic doctor that's forced to be a muslim because it's the family tradition, let's have doctors just be doctors, and seek out other people that have like interests, regardless of their background. let's let people be individuals, rather than statistics.
to me, that's post-culturalism, and it's the world i want to live in - not one where we split ourselves up by ethnic types, and then pretend that ethnic types have something to do with religion.
if you read the old literature on multiculturalism from the 60s, what we have today is not what they intended. they actually were aiming for a system where individuals overlapped with multiple cultures. so, they thought they'd create these weird kind of gurus that would go to yoga in the morning, say their prayers at noon and then attend a church service at night, before going for drinks with friends and waking up in the middle of a one-night stand. all of the contradictions inherent in this apparently went over the heads of those that designed this system, perhaps as a reflection of the shallowness of 60s culture. it's all just market choice, right? all about the experience. woah.
what we have, instead, are isolated tribes all plotting to assert their will on each other, and nobody intended for that or should want it to sustain itself, moving forward.
what we should learn from this is that integration and multiculturalism are actually in opposition to each other, and adjust to it, if what we want is integration and the tearing down of boundaries and labels.
moderate muslims and moderate christians are essentially indistinguishable from each other. so, if i'm violently opposed to moderate christianity, it follows that i should be equally opposed to moderate islam, for all of the same reasons.
likewise, fundamentalist muslims are indistinguishable from nazis. so, if i'm opposed to nazism, i need to oppose islam, too, for the same reasons.
this isn't going to make sense to conservatives, and i get that, but it's because they don't understand history very well. they think western culture is a product of christianity (!?), rather than the dismantling of it. the french revolution never happened. the russian revolution never happened. the enlightenment never happened. the renaissance never happened. the reformation didn't even happen. they just have this imaginary construct called "christendom" that never actually existed, and they erect these imaginary constructs of history around it.
real history is very different, and it pulls the rug out from under conservatism pretty viciously.
so, what does a post-religionist do in this reality of collapse happening around her?
well, the proper historical example is to look at how pagans reacted to the rise of christianity, and try to learn lessons from it.
the first and most important thing is to protect the knowledge, because they're going to come looking to destroy it. books. records. data. just hide it somewhere, as best you can. this, too, shall pass, and we don't want to let them wipe out history, in the meantime. the negative effects of christianity would have been dramatically lessened if they hadn't burned all of the history, science and philosophy books. so, that's priority number one: protect the data.
the second thing to realize is that, if they're allowed, they'll just kill you if they can. so, you need to find ways to exist without the religious authorities coming to get you and throwing you in jail, then sentencing you to death in an unfair show trial. it's important to maintain a concept of privacy.
here's a little known fact: cryptography, as we understand it, was invented to prevent the church from destroying science. scientists were not able to communicate freely, so they would encrypt their writings with a cypher that only the recipient could understand. that way, they could get their writings through checkpoints and raids without it being seized and burned. that kind of attitude is likely going to be necessary, but try to get a little out of the box; a public key, for example, is not the best idea. be security-minded, because they're coming for you, in time, if they're allowed to.
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
for now, i'd recommend mostly just being aware of what's happening around you, and being cognizant that some adjustments may be necessary in the short run.
in the long run, science wins by presenting superior arguments, and that's how we'll have to defeat these new islamic christofascists, in the end.
likewise, fundamentalist muslims are indistinguishable from nazis. so, if i'm opposed to nazism, i need to oppose islam, too, for the same reasons.
this isn't going to make sense to conservatives, and i get that, but it's because they don't understand history very well. they think western culture is a product of christianity (!?), rather than the dismantling of it. the french revolution never happened. the russian revolution never happened. the enlightenment never happened. the renaissance never happened. the reformation didn't even happen. they just have this imaginary construct called "christendom" that never actually existed, and they erect these imaginary constructs of history around it.
real history is very different, and it pulls the rug out from under conservatism pretty viciously.
so, what does a post-religionist do in this reality of collapse happening around her?
well, the proper historical example is to look at how pagans reacted to the rise of christianity, and try to learn lessons from it.
the first and most important thing is to protect the knowledge, because they're going to come looking to destroy it. books. records. data. just hide it somewhere, as best you can. this, too, shall pass, and we don't want to let them wipe out history, in the meantime. the negative effects of christianity would have been dramatically lessened if they hadn't burned all of the history, science and philosophy books. so, that's priority number one: protect the data.
the second thing to realize is that, if they're allowed, they'll just kill you if they can. so, you need to find ways to exist without the religious authorities coming to get you and throwing you in jail, then sentencing you to death in an unfair show trial. it's important to maintain a concept of privacy.
here's a little known fact: cryptography, as we understand it, was invented to prevent the church from destroying science. scientists were not able to communicate freely, so they would encrypt their writings with a cypher that only the recipient could understand. that way, they could get their writings through checkpoints and raids without it being seized and burned. that kind of attitude is likely going to be necessary, but try to get a little out of the box; a public key, for example, is not the best idea. be security-minded, because they're coming for you, in time, if they're allowed to.
while i won't condemn the bombing of mosques because i support a diversity of tactics, i would suggest tactics that are a little more productive than that. plus, killing yourself is just stupid. you're not of much use to anybody when you're dead.
for now, i'd recommend mostly just being aware of what's happening around you, and being cognizant that some adjustments may be necessary in the short run.
in the long run, science wins by presenting superior arguments, and that's how we'll have to defeat these new islamic christofascists, in the end.
yeah, so when i talk about the ongoing collapse of western society into a dark age, i don't know how anybody could interpret that as an embrace or defense of christianity.
the west is not defined as adjunct to or derived from christianity, but rather arose in a dialectic against it. contemporary western culture is the literal ideological opponent to historical christianity, in every conceivable way.
western culture embraces science, rationality, discourse and empiricism. these are the values that make us what we are; they define us, they explain us. christianity is the (foreign) system we had to overcome and dismantle in order to get to this point of defining ourselves in opposition to it.
a collapse into a dark age would be a return to the christian tyranny that we escaped, not a retreat from a christian identity that we've already discarded.
stated simply, muslims don't scare me because they're going to overthrow the christian order; muslims scare me because they're pretty much exactly the same thing as christians, and threaten to bring the christian order that we eradicated back, again.
and, what i'm really afraid of - what i'm really opposed to - is the return of christianity. muslims are just a newer, scarier type of christian.
a pile of shit by any other name will smell just as bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)