emotions are felt when your body releases certain hormones. cats release hormones associated with emotions. ergo, cats have emotions. it's no more complicated than that, really.
however, there are plenty of observations you can use that are similar to the way you'd test a dog, you just need to have the same kind of behaviour enforced. if you have a cat that you walk, and it likes to walk, it will respond similarly to a dog if you say 'walk' or bring out the leash. you can shake the food box and see it react.
cats also display certain emotional traits that dogs don't. when they're angry with you, they'll turn their back to you and ignore you, for example. dogs may go and sulk, but they don't ignore you the same way.
www.xojane.com/fun/science-has-figured-out-dog-emotions-cat-emotions-remain-a-no-go
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Dwayne
so many dumb brainwashed and americanised people in comments detected.
we attack and invade everything! and we drink vodka every day ! so we can have more land for bears to ride their unicycles! And we all wear those funny looking hats, and if we dont... we get shot!! Also it snows 24/7 , and the temperature is -1000 degrees!!
And america and EU are peacemakers! And they want to help the world and make it a happy place!!
thats what all of you dumb fuckheads probably think.
It makes me angry how fuckin retarded most of you people are
deathtokoalas
i think you're confused.
that's actually what americans think about canada.
Dwayne
well at least ive learned that americans can think. Maybe sooner or later they will be able to read and write
deathtokoalas
my sarcastic comment aside, i don't think there's much use in trying to determine a right and wrong, here. we're heavily conditioned in the west to think of every conflict as good v. evil, coming out of world war two - which russia and america ended up on the same side of, in a conflict of lesser evil v. much greater evil. colonialism is nasty, but even the genocide of native americans (and it's russian equivalent of siberian colonization) is hard to compare to the systemic extermination of multiple groups that was the holocaust, whether it had anything to do with british and american involvement in wwII or not.
the point is that since then every american conflict is put through this prism of american exceptionalism saving the world from itself, and as bullshit as it is through conflict after conflict, it is very difficult to shake. it's deeply embedded within the american psyche. if america is involved in a conflict, the enemy immediately becomes evil by default. they don't even need the propaganda anymore. it's just implicit.
the reality here in ukraine is that this is a part of a very complicated geopolitical struggle that is partially about resources but reduces at the end to america seeking to stamp out a competitor before it's able to reassert itself. you have to put it in the context of the missile shield that's coming up around russia, and the conflict in syria, and the asian pivot. america is being extraordinarily aggressive in containing russia - not because it's a threat to american security, but because it is competing with america for influence in several complex theatres, including syria, iran and china.
russia is rightly defending itself, but self-defense is not necessarily a pure motive. if the tables were turned, putin would be no less aggressive.
so, the key to getting a grasp on the situation is to understand that it is the sum of colonial powers competing against each other, and not some dualist struggle of good over evil. otherwise, you're just playing into the propaganda from one side or the other.
Max
look, i see what you mean, but invading other country (even with an execuse of defending it's people) is not a self-defence. And so is setting up rebel movements (obviously they're pro-russian, heavily armed, etc)
deathtokoalas
i want to be clear that this war is already lost. russia has no ability to defend itself from far superior western technology. when the missile shield is complete, russia will be swiftly invaded by nato, the government will be dismantled, and the country will be broken into several states and split between europe and china.
you don't realize this is the end game of a centuries old conflict between london and moscow (indeed, between rome and constantinople) that is on the brink of a final resolution.
so, the strategic objectives in the region have to do with the defense shields and naval bases, which extends the possible theatre in which russia can act in self-defense to a very wide area, including the baltics. russia cannot invade poland due to article V, but it's only chance is to take over the polish government somehow. this is not truly realistic...
in reality, the rather spineless actions russia has taken in ukraine are pretty lame in terms of defense arrangements. stalin would have leveled the country. jfk would have threatened nuclear war.
the truth is that putin is a wimp who history will remember as responsible for the final and irreversible decline of russian civilization.
Dwayne
"russia will be swiftly invaded by nato, the government will be dismantled, and the country will be broken into several states and split between europe and china." hahahahahahaaa yeah right
deathtokoalas
you think they're surrounding them with missiles pointed at their major cities for no reason? there's a lot written about this, from the brzezinski text to the pnac. the long war - which started at the end of the napoleonic wars, not the end of the second world war - is entering it's final stages.
Max
you're right, but to my mind the only reason, why Russia is acting such a way is need of money.
Let me explain myself : not long before Crimea became russian, Shell made a contract with Ukrainian government, obliging itself to search for oil, you what happened next.
Haven't you thought why Sloviansk & Kramatorsk were the main point where the firefight occured ? Not Lugansk or Donetsk. You see, Shell was there too, and even managed to get some shale gas.
Russia (as I think) is just trying to cut off Ukraine's ability to be energy dependent.
deathtokoalas
the amount of gas you can pull from shale is not enough for independence from russia, who has enormous energy reserves. this idea that fracking is going to keep america energy independent is likewise just a silly fantasy; the desperate attempt to squeeze the last bit of hydrocarbons out of america will be dry by roughly 2020. ukraine could get a few years out of it...
there's no doubt that energy is a huge aspect of this, but this doesn't have anything to do with ukraine, the ukrainian people or the resources that exist in ukraine. it's a geostrategic conflict over control of base placements.
this is really stage three of the post-iraq (and post-afghanistan) cleanup of russian influence from the energy triangle. stage one was ejecting russia from it's naval bases in libya, which was swift and successful. stage two was about kicking them out of syria, which looks like it failed. stage three is ukraine, but it's intricately tied into stage two. i'm sure you've noticed that the mess in ukraine has happened at the same time as an escalation of saudi mercenary movement in syria and iraq. russia has been forced to quiet down a little while it focuses on it's own backyard, giving the saudis and americans more room to maneuvre.
crimea is of course home to the southern part of the russian fleet. is it a coincidence that there were american warships moving to dock there after the coup? it's not.
now, imagine if that had happened, if the ukrainians had invited american naval troops into sevastopol. again, this isn't new, though. it just pulls the conflict back from the stalemate it was in through the 20th century to the offensive western position that existed in the 19th. and, there's not a militant germany in the middle anymore to keep both sides on their toes.
so, of course the russians seized crimea. it's one of their most important military bases, and the americans were on the cusp of taking it over. they couldn't let that happen.
but, the fact that it almost did is indicative of the relative weakness of russia in relation to america's continued dominance. this would have been inconceivable even ten years ago. but, all putin has done is twiddle his fingers while nato has slowly surrounded the country.
the eastern part of ukraine is of importance to russia primarily because it is an industrial area that (previously, the contracts are now cancelled) produced military equipment for russia. however, it is also an economically depressed area that russia does not want to pay the bills for. there was never a plan to annex the region, only a plan to set up a buffer state.
i was initially suggesting that all russia could accomplish in the region was to drain itself of resources, which is what nato was hoping for - that russia was foolishly taking the bait, when it should have been focusing on trying to engineer political movements in the more strategic regions of poland and the baltics. but, it seems that poroshenko has overplayed his hand by flat out destroying the area. the region is of no importance to russia if the factories are destroyed. should the russians rebuild their capacity, it would make more sense to do so elsewhere.
and, there is now no future left for the region but pointless conflict leading to abandoned ruins. neither moscow nor kiev will put the funds down to rebuild, and there is no economy there for the people to rebuild themselves.
so many dumb brainwashed and americanised people in comments detected.
we attack and invade everything! and we drink vodka every day ! so we can have more land for bears to ride their unicycles! And we all wear those funny looking hats, and if we dont... we get shot!! Also it snows 24/7 , and the temperature is -1000 degrees!!
And america and EU are peacemakers! And they want to help the world and make it a happy place!!
thats what all of you dumb fuckheads probably think.
It makes me angry how fuckin retarded most of you people are
deathtokoalas
i think you're confused.
that's actually what americans think about canada.
Dwayne
well at least ive learned that americans can think. Maybe sooner or later they will be able to read and write
deathtokoalas
my sarcastic comment aside, i don't think there's much use in trying to determine a right and wrong, here. we're heavily conditioned in the west to think of every conflict as good v. evil, coming out of world war two - which russia and america ended up on the same side of, in a conflict of lesser evil v. much greater evil. colonialism is nasty, but even the genocide of native americans (and it's russian equivalent of siberian colonization) is hard to compare to the systemic extermination of multiple groups that was the holocaust, whether it had anything to do with british and american involvement in wwII or not.
the point is that since then every american conflict is put through this prism of american exceptionalism saving the world from itself, and as bullshit as it is through conflict after conflict, it is very difficult to shake. it's deeply embedded within the american psyche. if america is involved in a conflict, the enemy immediately becomes evil by default. they don't even need the propaganda anymore. it's just implicit.
the reality here in ukraine is that this is a part of a very complicated geopolitical struggle that is partially about resources but reduces at the end to america seeking to stamp out a competitor before it's able to reassert itself. you have to put it in the context of the missile shield that's coming up around russia, and the conflict in syria, and the asian pivot. america is being extraordinarily aggressive in containing russia - not because it's a threat to american security, but because it is competing with america for influence in several complex theatres, including syria, iran and china.
russia is rightly defending itself, but self-defense is not necessarily a pure motive. if the tables were turned, putin would be no less aggressive.
so, the key to getting a grasp on the situation is to understand that it is the sum of colonial powers competing against each other, and not some dualist struggle of good over evil. otherwise, you're just playing into the propaganda from one side or the other.
Max
look, i see what you mean, but invading other country (even with an execuse of defending it's people) is not a self-defence. And so is setting up rebel movements (obviously they're pro-russian, heavily armed, etc)
deathtokoalas
i want to be clear that this war is already lost. russia has no ability to defend itself from far superior western technology. when the missile shield is complete, russia will be swiftly invaded by nato, the government will be dismantled, and the country will be broken into several states and split between europe and china.
you don't realize this is the end game of a centuries old conflict between london and moscow (indeed, between rome and constantinople) that is on the brink of a final resolution.
so, the strategic objectives in the region have to do with the defense shields and naval bases, which extends the possible theatre in which russia can act in self-defense to a very wide area, including the baltics. russia cannot invade poland due to article V, but it's only chance is to take over the polish government somehow. this is not truly realistic...
in reality, the rather spineless actions russia has taken in ukraine are pretty lame in terms of defense arrangements. stalin would have leveled the country. jfk would have threatened nuclear war.
the truth is that putin is a wimp who history will remember as responsible for the final and irreversible decline of russian civilization.
Dwayne
"russia will be swiftly invaded by nato, the government will be dismantled, and the country will be broken into several states and split between europe and china." hahahahahahaaa yeah right
deathtokoalas
you think they're surrounding them with missiles pointed at their major cities for no reason? there's a lot written about this, from the brzezinski text to the pnac. the long war - which started at the end of the napoleonic wars, not the end of the second world war - is entering it's final stages.
Max
you're right, but to my mind the only reason, why Russia is acting such a way is need of money.
Let me explain myself : not long before Crimea became russian, Shell made a contract with Ukrainian government, obliging itself to search for oil, you what happened next.
Haven't you thought why Sloviansk & Kramatorsk were the main point where the firefight occured ? Not Lugansk or Donetsk. You see, Shell was there too, and even managed to get some shale gas.
Russia (as I think) is just trying to cut off Ukraine's ability to be energy dependent.
deathtokoalas
the amount of gas you can pull from shale is not enough for independence from russia, who has enormous energy reserves. this idea that fracking is going to keep america energy independent is likewise just a silly fantasy; the desperate attempt to squeeze the last bit of hydrocarbons out of america will be dry by roughly 2020. ukraine could get a few years out of it...
there's no doubt that energy is a huge aspect of this, but this doesn't have anything to do with ukraine, the ukrainian people or the resources that exist in ukraine. it's a geostrategic conflict over control of base placements.
this is really stage three of the post-iraq (and post-afghanistan) cleanup of russian influence from the energy triangle. stage one was ejecting russia from it's naval bases in libya, which was swift and successful. stage two was about kicking them out of syria, which looks like it failed. stage three is ukraine, but it's intricately tied into stage two. i'm sure you've noticed that the mess in ukraine has happened at the same time as an escalation of saudi mercenary movement in syria and iraq. russia has been forced to quiet down a little while it focuses on it's own backyard, giving the saudis and americans more room to maneuvre.
crimea is of course home to the southern part of the russian fleet. is it a coincidence that there were american warships moving to dock there after the coup? it's not.
now, imagine if that had happened, if the ukrainians had invited american naval troops into sevastopol. again, this isn't new, though. it just pulls the conflict back from the stalemate it was in through the 20th century to the offensive western position that existed in the 19th. and, there's not a militant germany in the middle anymore to keep both sides on their toes.
so, of course the russians seized crimea. it's one of their most important military bases, and the americans were on the cusp of taking it over. they couldn't let that happen.
but, the fact that it almost did is indicative of the relative weakness of russia in relation to america's continued dominance. this would have been inconceivable even ten years ago. but, all putin has done is twiddle his fingers while nato has slowly surrounded the country.
the eastern part of ukraine is of importance to russia primarily because it is an industrial area that (previously, the contracts are now cancelled) produced military equipment for russia. however, it is also an economically depressed area that russia does not want to pay the bills for. there was never a plan to annex the region, only a plan to set up a buffer state.
i was initially suggesting that all russia could accomplish in the region was to drain itself of resources, which is what nato was hoping for - that russia was foolishly taking the bait, when it should have been focusing on trying to engineer political movements in the more strategic regions of poland and the baltics. but, it seems that poroshenko has overplayed his hand by flat out destroying the area. the region is of no importance to russia if the factories are destroyed. should the russians rebuild their capacity, it would make more sense to do so elsewhere.
and, there is now no future left for the region but pointless conflict leading to abandoned ruins. neither moscow nor kiev will put the funds down to rebuild, and there is no economy there for the people to rebuild themselves.
francezka
im catholic and in the bible it says that being gay is a sin. i do NOT believe that. it says that god made man and female so they could be together. but god made humans. he planted the concept of being gay in our human minds
Alejandrina
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:9-11 NIV)
deathtokoalas
that's a wonky translation - the idea of "homosexuality" did not exist at the time of paul's writings.
http://www.inherit-the-kingdom.org/bible/arsenokoites.html
francezka
i said i DONT believe that being gay is a sin. i dont believe you get to choose it either. God created you how you are. if he didnt like who you are why would he create you? youre created for a reason.
deathtokoalas
the calvinists (and offshoots) are a little weird on this point, but most christians would argue that god creates you with free will and you have the choice to follow him or not. why would he create gay people and then taunt them? i dunno. seems kind of sadistic. then again, so is flooding the world, isn't it?
this idea of free will is largely what underlies the idea that homosexuality is a choice (i don't accept the genetic arguments, but i think it's oversimplifying it to suggest it's as simple as choosing to be or not to be gay).
i'm just pointing out that it's a weird argument from a christian perspective, or much of any kind of religious perspective. i'm not really aware of a religion that assigns creation with that much actual design inherent in it. the german indigenous religions had an idea of fate assigned to them, but they were not so tied to it so as to have it determine sexual preference.
most religions begin with a set of rules and give adherents the choice to follow them or not - so long as they're aware of the consequences (ie eternal damnation, or getting stuck in the wheel, or whatever).
i think this is more leaning towards like parmenides or something.
i don't think your view is obscure in our society, though, and it maybe says something about the world we live in.
past cultures and civilizations looked to the unknown to understand why there is catastrophe in the world, because catastrophe was their daily reality. we look to the unknown to explain why there is harmony - because it is what we know, with our absurd wealth firewalled behind three oceans and an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
it's a better vision, i'll grant you that.
Alejandrina
Yeah Ik we are called to love them. I never said we should disown them and it obviously was in the time of Paul otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible!
francezka
well i am truly 100% catholic. but if being gay was a sin, why would god create the concept of it? that would be so pointless. EVERYTHING has a point to it. why would it happen if there was no point to it??
deathtokoalas
again: have you considered that the point is to punish it?
'cause that's what catholics actually think.
i'd really suggest looking into calvinism, i think it's closer to what you're thinking.
to clarify...
catholics think it's a sin. if you're taking a different approach, you're breaking with catholicism right there. so, from a catholic perspective, "why does homosexuality exist?" is the same question as "why does sin exist?".
catholicism would not provide a one-sentence response for that, but it reduces to the whole original sin thing with the fallen nature and the temptation of evil. again, this goes back to free will and choice. but, why does god give us the choice in the first place? there's story after story about this in the bible, and it comes down to a series of tests. god puts all kind of roadblocks in front of you on your way to eternal salvation, to make sure you make the right choice. gay? wrong choice, hell..
that's not me talking, that's what catholicism says: homosexuals are people that make a choice to be sinful.
calvinism takes a different approach altogether in assigning you salvation or damnation from the point you're conceived. while catholicism would not argue god made you gay, calvinism would argue god makes you gay - and then condemns you for it. so, the answer in calvinism is that god made you gay so that you can go to hell, and there's nothing you can do about it. that's not a gay-specific thing, it's general across all the different types of sin. it's very weird in terms of christianity, because it rejects the idea of forgiveness.
neither are really what you want to hear, though, which is "god made you gay, so god must approve it". if that's what you want to hear, you need to look at a different religion than christianity. unfortunately, i don't have any suggestions - i don't think one exists.
Gabrielle
Our God would never plant this kind of evil in our head. Our God is perfect and we humans always expect a flaw in everything, plus satan does everything the opposite as God does so when God says to multiply satan wants death. I am trying to not attack but when i see God's children say such things like "being gay is okay" is is very painful for me to watch.
deathtokoalas
is it so painful that it makes you want to just end it all, gabrielle?
Bethany
and God loves everybody and God made everything happen for a reason
deathtokoalas
again: false. x. fail.
unless you're a calvinist, in which case it's half true: god doesn't love everybody, but god does make everything happen for a reason.
Caoimhe
If being gay was choice the no one would want to be tortured or bullied because they were gay plus it ll depends on who you love
deathtokoalas
so, being an atheist must not be a choice either, then.
Caoimhe
what atheists aren't bullied... But if they were not as bad as gays HOWEVER that is you religion what you WANT to believe in that IS a choice. For example: (I'll use beverages as my example) you can have 2 choices of drinks you can choose juice or water (as in religion) but you need to have water in your life and you cannot replace it with anything else (like your sexuality which you are stuck with) which some people like/enjoy their sexuality
deathtokoalas
religionists have killed millions of atheists over many centuries, often by giving them the simple choice of repent or be burned.
so, if your argument is that nobody would choose persecution over maintaining a belief system, i think you need to look at history a little more closely.
Caoimhe
don't tell me to look at history more closely I know my history but I wasn't talking about atheists get killed I was talking about gays, YOU brought up the subject. Atheists are grown people they choose their lifestyle and religions you cannot be born a religion and cannot change it it's what you believe so the people that died chose to believe that way which caused their deaths
deathtokoalas
wow. we've got a real smart one here.
i know a waste of time when i see it. if you'd like to explain to me that you understand my response, we can continue the discussion.
Caoimhe
WOAH what was with the insult?
deathtokoalas
you're having a lot of difficulty following a simple discussion. now, can you explain to me what i said, or not?
Caoimhe
we are talking about homosexuals here not mainly on religion (and I know from the video that the guy was talking about had been biased by religion)
deathtokoalas
remember: the point of contention is whether homosexuality is a choice or not.
Caoimhe
dude/chick (I don't know what you are) you don't even know me how can you say I'm having difficulty understanding what you said, I'm just giving my opinions on what you said, you don't have to be a cyber jerk because I'm just participating in the argument/conversation
yes that is what I said we are talking about homosexuals
deathtokoalas
right. so, you stated (in a jumbled syntax) that homosexuality can't be a choice because nobody would choose to be persecuted. are you honestly that clueless, or do you realize that it's an absurd argument?
Caoimhe
you have no idea what homosexuals go through you cannot call me clueless unless you are one and you understand your lifestyle and know that you cannot change it.
deathtokoalas
ok. so the question is if you can change it or not. can you tell me that you understand that this is the point of debate and not an established truth?
Caoimhe
I completely understand that you are all debating whether homosexuality is a characteristic of whether you can change or not and I have stated that you CANNOT change it, if I made you confused by my statements, then I apologise but you cannot change your sexuality no matter what it's just how we work with love
deathtokoalas
you haven't explained why you think this, and your statement is consequently invalid.
Caoimhe
I HAVE!!! MY FIRST COMMENT SAYS HOW I THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE OR NOT AND THEN YOU BROUGHT FRICKIN ATHEISTS INTO THE SUBJECT
deathtokoalas
the reason presented in your first comment was demonstrated to be idiotic.
Caoimhe
how was it idiotic?
Explain to me how it was idiotic you complete cyber stranger, tell me how it was idiotic because obviously you seem to know me so well, so tell me SPECIFICALLY how my comment was idiotic wise one instead of swaying to a different topic like religion, tell me wise one how it was stupid
deathtokoalas
i already explained this, and you weren't able to follow it.
you're going to have to learn to back up your opinions at some point. but an individual on the internet can only do so much to correct a broken school system. you have to take that initiative yourself.
---
John Paul
ACTUALLY science has proven to being gay is a birth thing see when a women is pregnant we all start as a female egg its it when the DNA wants to decide to make it a male or keep as a female (thats usually why in rare case a man/woman is born with a vagina or both) anyways during that process of turning the baby a male sometimes the immune system doesn't recognize what the foreign object is so wight blood cells attack the fetus and if that happens the hormones go all whack feminizing the fetus and its a boy who feels like a girl i don't to much detail cause this is already really long and your probably tired of reading this
NG Sync
wtf?
Mercedes Dawn
Accutaly we start as sperm.
John Paul
lol ya that to but the egg is always a female until the DNA wants to change it
Aaliyah J
Scienceness
Pretty Little Liars
That's not necessarily what I've seen. The only experiments that I know about show that it could be about the amount of testosterone (I think) the baby is exposed to, or something along those lines. I'm sure it'll be a while before we know for sure the science behind it.
deathtokoalas
right, but if you think about that for a second it doesn't make any sense as a general marker for orientation. what the studies suggest (and i should be clear that they only refer to men, i was being a little liberal in my interpretation, previously) is that there may be a genetic marker for "queenie" type queer dudes that may have something to do with testosterone/estrogen levels. men have estrogen, and women have testosterone. the suggestion is that the homosexuality may be the result of an imbalance there, and that may be driven genetically.
but you've surely met gay men that are not "queenie" and that you'd basically have no idea are gay unless they've told you. further, i know quite a few dudes that have the "queenie" personality (and probably have the genes) but are not attracted to men. so, maybe they found the genetic marker for the "queenie" personality, but that's not the same thing as finding the gay gene.
again: the right way to read these studies is probably that the hormonal imbalance produces the "queenie" personality which, in the presence of various social indicators (perhaps including greater social identification with "girl things"), might induce the homosexual preference.
Mackenzie Jay
I do agree with you on the science. However, the science does not have any effect on our emotions. Psychology? Maybe. But not emotions.
deathtokoalas
your emotions are chemical reactions...
Rachelle Kwon
I'm pretty sure men have testosterones? I don't know I could be wrong
deathtokoalas
that's right. the meaning of the sentence is that both genders have both sex hormones, in differing quantities. estrogen production in men is essential, but is going to vary by individual (as insulin or any other hormone - indeed, testosterone - does).
Sarah Elizabeth
Those are all valid scientific points, but that has to do with gender identity, not sexual orientation. They are two completely different categories not to be confused.
deathtokoalas
i think you're right, but the research, itself, has made this error - and the idea of the "gay gene" relies on this error.
im catholic and in the bible it says that being gay is a sin. i do NOT believe that. it says that god made man and female so they could be together. but god made humans. he planted the concept of being gay in our human minds
Alejandrina
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. (1 Timothy 1:9-11 NIV)
deathtokoalas
that's a wonky translation - the idea of "homosexuality" did not exist at the time of paul's writings.
http://www.inherit-the-kingdom.org/bible/arsenokoites.html
francezka
i said i DONT believe that being gay is a sin. i dont believe you get to choose it either. God created you how you are. if he didnt like who you are why would he create you? youre created for a reason.
deathtokoalas
the calvinists (and offshoots) are a little weird on this point, but most christians would argue that god creates you with free will and you have the choice to follow him or not. why would he create gay people and then taunt them? i dunno. seems kind of sadistic. then again, so is flooding the world, isn't it?
this idea of free will is largely what underlies the idea that homosexuality is a choice (i don't accept the genetic arguments, but i think it's oversimplifying it to suggest it's as simple as choosing to be or not to be gay).
i'm just pointing out that it's a weird argument from a christian perspective, or much of any kind of religious perspective. i'm not really aware of a religion that assigns creation with that much actual design inherent in it. the german indigenous religions had an idea of fate assigned to them, but they were not so tied to it so as to have it determine sexual preference.
most religions begin with a set of rules and give adherents the choice to follow them or not - so long as they're aware of the consequences (ie eternal damnation, or getting stuck in the wheel, or whatever).
i think this is more leaning towards like parmenides or something.
i don't think your view is obscure in our society, though, and it maybe says something about the world we live in.
past cultures and civilizations looked to the unknown to understand why there is catastrophe in the world, because catastrophe was their daily reality. we look to the unknown to explain why there is harmony - because it is what we know, with our absurd wealth firewalled behind three oceans and an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
it's a better vision, i'll grant you that.
Alejandrina
Yeah Ik we are called to love them. I never said we should disown them and it obviously was in the time of Paul otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bible!
francezka
well i am truly 100% catholic. but if being gay was a sin, why would god create the concept of it? that would be so pointless. EVERYTHING has a point to it. why would it happen if there was no point to it??
deathtokoalas
again: have you considered that the point is to punish it?
'cause that's what catholics actually think.
i'd really suggest looking into calvinism, i think it's closer to what you're thinking.
to clarify...
catholics think it's a sin. if you're taking a different approach, you're breaking with catholicism right there. so, from a catholic perspective, "why does homosexuality exist?" is the same question as "why does sin exist?".
catholicism would not provide a one-sentence response for that, but it reduces to the whole original sin thing with the fallen nature and the temptation of evil. again, this goes back to free will and choice. but, why does god give us the choice in the first place? there's story after story about this in the bible, and it comes down to a series of tests. god puts all kind of roadblocks in front of you on your way to eternal salvation, to make sure you make the right choice. gay? wrong choice, hell..
that's not me talking, that's what catholicism says: homosexuals are people that make a choice to be sinful.
calvinism takes a different approach altogether in assigning you salvation or damnation from the point you're conceived. while catholicism would not argue god made you gay, calvinism would argue god makes you gay - and then condemns you for it. so, the answer in calvinism is that god made you gay so that you can go to hell, and there's nothing you can do about it. that's not a gay-specific thing, it's general across all the different types of sin. it's very weird in terms of christianity, because it rejects the idea of forgiveness.
neither are really what you want to hear, though, which is "god made you gay, so god must approve it". if that's what you want to hear, you need to look at a different religion than christianity. unfortunately, i don't have any suggestions - i don't think one exists.
Gabrielle
Our God would never plant this kind of evil in our head. Our God is perfect and we humans always expect a flaw in everything, plus satan does everything the opposite as God does so when God says to multiply satan wants death. I am trying to not attack but when i see God's children say such things like "being gay is okay" is is very painful for me to watch.
deathtokoalas
is it so painful that it makes you want to just end it all, gabrielle?
Bethany
and God loves everybody and God made everything happen for a reason
deathtokoalas
again: false. x. fail.
unless you're a calvinist, in which case it's half true: god doesn't love everybody, but god does make everything happen for a reason.
Caoimhe
If being gay was choice the no one would want to be tortured or bullied because they were gay plus it ll depends on who you love
deathtokoalas
so, being an atheist must not be a choice either, then.
Caoimhe
what atheists aren't bullied... But if they were not as bad as gays HOWEVER that is you religion what you WANT to believe in that IS a choice. For example: (I'll use beverages as my example) you can have 2 choices of drinks you can choose juice or water (as in religion) but you need to have water in your life and you cannot replace it with anything else (like your sexuality which you are stuck with) which some people like/enjoy their sexuality
deathtokoalas
religionists have killed millions of atheists over many centuries, often by giving them the simple choice of repent or be burned.
so, if your argument is that nobody would choose persecution over maintaining a belief system, i think you need to look at history a little more closely.
Caoimhe
don't tell me to look at history more closely I know my history but I wasn't talking about atheists get killed I was talking about gays, YOU brought up the subject. Atheists are grown people they choose their lifestyle and religions you cannot be born a religion and cannot change it it's what you believe so the people that died chose to believe that way which caused their deaths
deathtokoalas
wow. we've got a real smart one here.
i know a waste of time when i see it. if you'd like to explain to me that you understand my response, we can continue the discussion.
Caoimhe
WOAH what was with the insult?
deathtokoalas
you're having a lot of difficulty following a simple discussion. now, can you explain to me what i said, or not?
Caoimhe
we are talking about homosexuals here not mainly on religion (and I know from the video that the guy was talking about had been biased by religion)
deathtokoalas
remember: the point of contention is whether homosexuality is a choice or not.
Caoimhe
dude/chick (I don't know what you are) you don't even know me how can you say I'm having difficulty understanding what you said, I'm just giving my opinions on what you said, you don't have to be a cyber jerk because I'm just participating in the argument/conversation
yes that is what I said we are talking about homosexuals
deathtokoalas
right. so, you stated (in a jumbled syntax) that homosexuality can't be a choice because nobody would choose to be persecuted. are you honestly that clueless, or do you realize that it's an absurd argument?
Caoimhe
you have no idea what homosexuals go through you cannot call me clueless unless you are one and you understand your lifestyle and know that you cannot change it.
deathtokoalas
ok. so the question is if you can change it or not. can you tell me that you understand that this is the point of debate and not an established truth?
Caoimhe
I completely understand that you are all debating whether homosexuality is a characteristic of whether you can change or not and I have stated that you CANNOT change it, if I made you confused by my statements, then I apologise but you cannot change your sexuality no matter what it's just how we work with love
deathtokoalas
you haven't explained why you think this, and your statement is consequently invalid.
Caoimhe
I HAVE!!! MY FIRST COMMENT SAYS HOW I THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE OR NOT AND THEN YOU BROUGHT FRICKIN ATHEISTS INTO THE SUBJECT
deathtokoalas
the reason presented in your first comment was demonstrated to be idiotic.
Caoimhe
how was it idiotic?
Explain to me how it was idiotic you complete cyber stranger, tell me how it was idiotic because obviously you seem to know me so well, so tell me SPECIFICALLY how my comment was idiotic wise one instead of swaying to a different topic like religion, tell me wise one how it was stupid
deathtokoalas
i already explained this, and you weren't able to follow it.
you're going to have to learn to back up your opinions at some point. but an individual on the internet can only do so much to correct a broken school system. you have to take that initiative yourself.
---
John Paul
ACTUALLY science has proven to being gay is a birth thing see when a women is pregnant we all start as a female egg its it when the DNA wants to decide to make it a male or keep as a female (thats usually why in rare case a man/woman is born with a vagina or both) anyways during that process of turning the baby a male sometimes the immune system doesn't recognize what the foreign object is so wight blood cells attack the fetus and if that happens the hormones go all whack feminizing the fetus and its a boy who feels like a girl i don't to much detail cause this is already really long and your probably tired of reading this
NG Sync
wtf?
Mercedes Dawn
Accutaly we start as sperm.
John Paul
lol ya that to but the egg is always a female until the DNA wants to change it
Aaliyah J
Scienceness
Pretty Little Liars
That's not necessarily what I've seen. The only experiments that I know about show that it could be about the amount of testosterone (I think) the baby is exposed to, or something along those lines. I'm sure it'll be a while before we know for sure the science behind it.
deathtokoalas
right, but if you think about that for a second it doesn't make any sense as a general marker for orientation. what the studies suggest (and i should be clear that they only refer to men, i was being a little liberal in my interpretation, previously) is that there may be a genetic marker for "queenie" type queer dudes that may have something to do with testosterone/estrogen levels. men have estrogen, and women have testosterone. the suggestion is that the homosexuality may be the result of an imbalance there, and that may be driven genetically.
but you've surely met gay men that are not "queenie" and that you'd basically have no idea are gay unless they've told you. further, i know quite a few dudes that have the "queenie" personality (and probably have the genes) but are not attracted to men. so, maybe they found the genetic marker for the "queenie" personality, but that's not the same thing as finding the gay gene.
again: the right way to read these studies is probably that the hormonal imbalance produces the "queenie" personality which, in the presence of various social indicators (perhaps including greater social identification with "girl things"), might induce the homosexual preference.
Mackenzie Jay
I do agree with you on the science. However, the science does not have any effect on our emotions. Psychology? Maybe. But not emotions.
deathtokoalas
your emotions are chemical reactions...
Rachelle Kwon
I'm pretty sure men have testosterones? I don't know I could be wrong
deathtokoalas
that's right. the meaning of the sentence is that both genders have both sex hormones, in differing quantities. estrogen production in men is essential, but is going to vary by individual (as insulin or any other hormone - indeed, testosterone - does).
Sarah Elizabeth
Those are all valid scientific points, but that has to do with gender identity, not sexual orientation. They are two completely different categories not to be confused.
deathtokoalas
i think you're right, but the research, itself, has made this error - and the idea of the "gay gene" relies on this error.
Friday, October 10, 2014
the doctors in this city are real hard asses.
so, i went down on tuesday to refill my estrogen (specifically) and learned i was on my last refill. so, i asked them to send a fax to the ottawa doctor, as they had previously done. i got something back from the doctor indicating he's no longer practicing, along with my last refill (from him). that meant i had to find a doctor here.....
i was able to quickly set up an appointment for this afternoon with an endocrinologist that deals with gender transitions. it was the same process i went through with the shrink i saw a few months ago - he decided he didn't like my attitude, accused me of having a personality disorder (which is probably true, that's why i went to see the shrink, although he wouldn't diagnose it) and tossed me from his office.
what led to the conflict was the suggestion that generally people that come in looking for prescriptions are "already living in a female role", to which i retorted that i am and have been living in a female role for many years. apparently, he didn't find it convincing. it's true that i'm not the hyper-feminine type. but it's also true that if you pulled a dozen random women off the street, i'd be somewhere in the middle of the gender spectrum presented. lots of women walk around in jeans and cons and no make-up. it's entirely "normal". so, no, i'm not the hysterical trans stereotype, but the hysterical trans stereotype really isn't at all representative of women of my generation, either. the hysterical trans stereotype is actually probably indicative of a greater psychological issue than gender dysphoria, at this point, but the literature (that i've seen) is just absurdly stuck in the past. i'm really a pretty "normal", "average" kind of late 20s or early 30s woman of my age and peer group. i guess that wasn't good enough for this guy.
there's also the fact that i'm in my 30s, even if i happen to look many years younger. i've kind of grown out of the heavy-make-up-frilly-socks stage of life. i know the hysterical trans stereotype is attached to not growing out of that at all, but it's also attached to really gross sexual fetishes that i simply don't have. further, i have to be honest that i really don't like being put in a situation where i have to defend the fact that being transgendered does not imply anything about sexual preferences. at all. i'm a very sexually conservative person that has consciously chosen to not have a sex life, and it's really....gross...to have to justify my gender identification in the face of not being perceived as a tranny slut. i'm not going to walk around presenting myself as an insecure teenager, or, worse, a street walker. i'm just not that person. i like comfortable clothes that minimize my sexuality, and i'm old enough to walk around in them without giving a fuck.
i then suggested that it's not his role to act as a psychiatrist, that i've already been through that process and he really has no place in undoing an existing psychological diagnosis. that's when he started to get standoffish, but the fact is that i'm absolutely right. if the guy thinks he can undo twenty-five years worth of thinking and months of talking it over with a shrink (it was a long time ago, but it happened), in well under an hour (more like ten minutes) then he's simply an idiot. i'm sorry. it's utter stupidity.
so, i went back to the clinic that sent me there in the first place. i was able to determine that the doctor there *could* refill the medication for me, but has decided to *not* do so. as far as i could tell, it was a religious thing. she repeatedly stated that she had to be at a mosque for 2:00, which strongly suggested to me that she's opposed to the whole thing and referring me to somebody else out of principle.
i got a new referral in. but i'm very skeptical that it's going to get me the refill before nov 1. i at least now know that virtually any doctor *could* do this refill for me, for at least one month. i'm going to have to get out on monday and try to find one that will.
i didn't have makeup on, and i'm older than the model here (although don't really look it), but i otherwise didn't look that different than her:
https://www.thebudgetfashionista.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/White-Tee.jpg
is there something unfeminine about that, or is it actually a pretty "nomal" outfit?
i'd argue the latter.
it was probably *too* normal. but i'm not a drag performer. i'm the girl next door.
the literature is just really fucked.
well, i had pink shoes. and a pink sweater around my waist. that matches the shoes. minor detail.
in addition, i wasn't going to a job interview or a party or on a date. i was going to a dr's appointment. is it not far more bizarre to dress provocatively to see a doctor than it is to dress down?
would you not expect a mostly transitioned, integrated transperson to dress "normally"? would a really colourful or brazen outfit not be evidence of difficulty integrating?
but i've been to these doctors and they expect transgendered people to show up dressed provocatively. i'm not going on a feminist rant about this, what i'm thinking is obvious, it doesn't need to be stated.
i think i have to be rational about it. i've spoken to two doctors so far. one seems to have been enforcing patriarchal expectations. the other seems to have had religious objections. surely, i can find one with neither bias.
i'll point out that the nurse at the clinic indicated that the endocrinologist has a history of this kind of bullshit. i'm not the first person that's gone through this with him. so, that's another rational consideration - he's reacted like this before.
but, the doctors here that i've seen so far sure are hard asses, wow....
i guess it reinforces the importance of finding a good doctor.
which is something i have no choice but to do, now.
--
i need to stress this point: you'd think if i showed up in fishnets or something, at the age of 33, i'd be bipolar or something. honestly. you don't see women my age walking around like that to go to a doctor's appointment.
but that might be my error. maybe i'm so comfortable with myself in an essentially post-transition space that it never crossed my mind that i had something to prove to this guy.
i don't have any "business attire" to wear to the next appointment, which is a more suitable wardrobe for somebody of my age and experience. but i need to be more conscious of the fact that the guy is going to be analyzing me relative to where i was in transition five years ago, rather than where i am now.
it's bullshit. i'm mad at myself for compromising my values like this, but i think i'm going to have to.
like, i'm already transitioned. i've been transitioned for a couple of years, now. it's not a question of progressing through stages, it's a question of maintaining access to medication.
i just happen to be a chick that looks a little like a dude, and there's not really anything i can do that's within my budget to reverse that.
....but the doctor might not realize that. i'll argue strenuously that it's not his place to question it, but it's not going to get me closer to getting what i need to maintain the post-transition state.
i can't really dress for work, because i don't have a work wardrobe.
i don't want to dress like i'm going to a party, that's revolting.
but i can dress for a casual date. he fucking starts hitting on me, though, and i'm strangling him with his fucking stethoscope...
--
there's another sort of nagging concern in the back of my mind.
i've been around enough "trans support" groups to know that a lot of them are actually fronts for prostitution. his language of "i don't get a good vibe from you" and the tone of voice that he said it in kind of immediately set off those bells.
it sounds off the wall libellous, but trust me when i say it isn't: the guy very well might be a pimp, and he may have quickly determined i wasn't likely to work for him, and tossed me on my ear because of it.
i need to stop flipping out over it, though, and just get to work in finding a better doctor on monday....
i mean, the first thing he asked me was if i was bisexual. normally, they ask about it, but they don't make assumptions, and the way he asked was sort of slimy.
i responded with the truth: i'm asexual. well, i've been on testosterone blockers for four years. i don't even masturbate any more - i probably couldn't, at this point, if i tried, but i haven't tried in....a long time. i get the odd dream, but they're separated by months. and while the refrain for the last few decades has been "actually, women LIKE sex"....the truth is you need to put a "some" in there. i don't really have much interest in lying around while somebody else gets off on me. sorry.
i hadn't had sex in almost five years before i went on the testosterone blockers in the first place. the transition hasn't altered my sex life in any way, because there wasn't one to begin with. and, going off hormones isn't going to have me develop one - i'd just start masturbating again. the reasons i'm not interested in sex aren't at all connected to my gender identity. i went through a relationship about ten years ago that just completely soured me on the whole idea of relationships, and i've been single by choice ever since. they're really completely unrelated things.
but, i got a huge frown from it, as though i was stating i wasn't of any use to him.
--
just to clarify: i have absolutely no sex drive, but i actually prefer it that way, as it clears up more energy for other things. i'm not asexual because of the lack of sex drive, but the lack of a sex drive makes me more comfortable in my asexuality. you interact with people - of whatever gender - a whole lot differently when you already know that you'll never, ever have sex with them. sometimes, there's a little work in establishing that, but once it is established, it just really clears the air. there's no pretensions. no fantasies. and you figure out quickly who actually likes who for you are and who has ulterior motives. call me a eunuch if you want, and tell me i'm an anomaly in our current culture if it makes you feel good about yourself, but i'm happier with no sex drive.
if i had to choose only one of the three drugs to take, i'd pick the testosterone blocker over the estrogen or progesterone immediately. that's one of the more profound conclusions i've come to. i haven't been reflecting here as much as i was a few years ago, but i've been thinking about that quite a bit. the feminizing aspects are desirable to me and everything, but i'm at the age where there's not really any actual consequence of them. if i were to go through the process of actual sexual reassignment now, i'd be in an age category where sex is infrequent by the time i got done, sort of thing. and, then, what have i accomplished besides having to squat in public? but the chemical castration has had really positive effects on my mental well being. that's the thing i'm going to fight the hardest to maintain.
i just find the whole thing to be such a huge waste of time. in the end, i'm going to die, and do i really want my life to have been focused on sex and labour? god, what a horribly trivial existence! i want there to be art, writings - things of substance left behind. this idea of life as a hedonistic adventure is just revolting to me. i know it's our culture. it's the way our society spins. but i'm really pretty comprehensive in my rejection of our culture and society, aren't i? it shouldn't really be that surprising, when you put it into the context of what i think about every other component of the world we inhabit.
i think i'd be more likely to fall in love with a robot than a human, but i doubt i'm going to live to see the day...
in the end, transhumanism will probably abolish sex.
i'm ahead of the curve on this and i know it. same as all the other things....
--
when i was a kid, i used to often hear that
"women can do anything men can do except pee standing up."
my dad told me that. often. i think there's quite a bit of truth to it.
if i really sit down and carefully weigh what life is going to be like pre and post srs, i have to honestly conclude that the only thing that's actually going to change is the peeing standing up part......and for the months of therapy and healing and everything else involved, it's hard to come up with a logical argument in favour of it.
there's an emotional component, but i've never been driven by emotion, i've always been driven by logic.
if it was 15 years ago, the calculation would be different, but it's pointless now, i'm too old.
--
so, i had a bad appointment today...
i'm done flipping out over it for now. back to work.
so, i went down on tuesday to refill my estrogen (specifically) and learned i was on my last refill. so, i asked them to send a fax to the ottawa doctor, as they had previously done. i got something back from the doctor indicating he's no longer practicing, along with my last refill (from him). that meant i had to find a doctor here.....
i was able to quickly set up an appointment for this afternoon with an endocrinologist that deals with gender transitions. it was the same process i went through with the shrink i saw a few months ago - he decided he didn't like my attitude, accused me of having a personality disorder (which is probably true, that's why i went to see the shrink, although he wouldn't diagnose it) and tossed me from his office.
what led to the conflict was the suggestion that generally people that come in looking for prescriptions are "already living in a female role", to which i retorted that i am and have been living in a female role for many years. apparently, he didn't find it convincing. it's true that i'm not the hyper-feminine type. but it's also true that if you pulled a dozen random women off the street, i'd be somewhere in the middle of the gender spectrum presented. lots of women walk around in jeans and cons and no make-up. it's entirely "normal". so, no, i'm not the hysterical trans stereotype, but the hysterical trans stereotype really isn't at all representative of women of my generation, either. the hysterical trans stereotype is actually probably indicative of a greater psychological issue than gender dysphoria, at this point, but the literature (that i've seen) is just absurdly stuck in the past. i'm really a pretty "normal", "average" kind of late 20s or early 30s woman of my age and peer group. i guess that wasn't good enough for this guy.
there's also the fact that i'm in my 30s, even if i happen to look many years younger. i've kind of grown out of the heavy-make-up-frilly-socks stage of life. i know the hysterical trans stereotype is attached to not growing out of that at all, but it's also attached to really gross sexual fetishes that i simply don't have. further, i have to be honest that i really don't like being put in a situation where i have to defend the fact that being transgendered does not imply anything about sexual preferences. at all. i'm a very sexually conservative person that has consciously chosen to not have a sex life, and it's really....gross...to have to justify my gender identification in the face of not being perceived as a tranny slut. i'm not going to walk around presenting myself as an insecure teenager, or, worse, a street walker. i'm just not that person. i like comfortable clothes that minimize my sexuality, and i'm old enough to walk around in them without giving a fuck.
i then suggested that it's not his role to act as a psychiatrist, that i've already been through that process and he really has no place in undoing an existing psychological diagnosis. that's when he started to get standoffish, but the fact is that i'm absolutely right. if the guy thinks he can undo twenty-five years worth of thinking and months of talking it over with a shrink (it was a long time ago, but it happened), in well under an hour (more like ten minutes) then he's simply an idiot. i'm sorry. it's utter stupidity.
so, i went back to the clinic that sent me there in the first place. i was able to determine that the doctor there *could* refill the medication for me, but has decided to *not* do so. as far as i could tell, it was a religious thing. she repeatedly stated that she had to be at a mosque for 2:00, which strongly suggested to me that she's opposed to the whole thing and referring me to somebody else out of principle.
i got a new referral in. but i'm very skeptical that it's going to get me the refill before nov 1. i at least now know that virtually any doctor *could* do this refill for me, for at least one month. i'm going to have to get out on monday and try to find one that will.
i didn't have makeup on, and i'm older than the model here (although don't really look it), but i otherwise didn't look that different than her:
https://www.thebudgetfashionista.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/White-Tee.jpg
is there something unfeminine about that, or is it actually a pretty "nomal" outfit?
i'd argue the latter.
it was probably *too* normal. but i'm not a drag performer. i'm the girl next door.
the literature is just really fucked.
well, i had pink shoes. and a pink sweater around my waist. that matches the shoes. minor detail.
in addition, i wasn't going to a job interview or a party or on a date. i was going to a dr's appointment. is it not far more bizarre to dress provocatively to see a doctor than it is to dress down?
would you not expect a mostly transitioned, integrated transperson to dress "normally"? would a really colourful or brazen outfit not be evidence of difficulty integrating?
but i've been to these doctors and they expect transgendered people to show up dressed provocatively. i'm not going on a feminist rant about this, what i'm thinking is obvious, it doesn't need to be stated.
i think i have to be rational about it. i've spoken to two doctors so far. one seems to have been enforcing patriarchal expectations. the other seems to have had religious objections. surely, i can find one with neither bias.
i'll point out that the nurse at the clinic indicated that the endocrinologist has a history of this kind of bullshit. i'm not the first person that's gone through this with him. so, that's another rational consideration - he's reacted like this before.
but, the doctors here that i've seen so far sure are hard asses, wow....
i guess it reinforces the importance of finding a good doctor.
which is something i have no choice but to do, now.
--
i need to stress this point: you'd think if i showed up in fishnets or something, at the age of 33, i'd be bipolar or something. honestly. you don't see women my age walking around like that to go to a doctor's appointment.
but that might be my error. maybe i'm so comfortable with myself in an essentially post-transition space that it never crossed my mind that i had something to prove to this guy.
i don't have any "business attire" to wear to the next appointment, which is a more suitable wardrobe for somebody of my age and experience. but i need to be more conscious of the fact that the guy is going to be analyzing me relative to where i was in transition five years ago, rather than where i am now.
it's bullshit. i'm mad at myself for compromising my values like this, but i think i'm going to have to.
like, i'm already transitioned. i've been transitioned for a couple of years, now. it's not a question of progressing through stages, it's a question of maintaining access to medication.
i just happen to be a chick that looks a little like a dude, and there's not really anything i can do that's within my budget to reverse that.
....but the doctor might not realize that. i'll argue strenuously that it's not his place to question it, but it's not going to get me closer to getting what i need to maintain the post-transition state.
i can't really dress for work, because i don't have a work wardrobe.
i don't want to dress like i'm going to a party, that's revolting.
but i can dress for a casual date. he fucking starts hitting on me, though, and i'm strangling him with his fucking stethoscope...
--
there's another sort of nagging concern in the back of my mind.
i've been around enough "trans support" groups to know that a lot of them are actually fronts for prostitution. his language of "i don't get a good vibe from you" and the tone of voice that he said it in kind of immediately set off those bells.
it sounds off the wall libellous, but trust me when i say it isn't: the guy very well might be a pimp, and he may have quickly determined i wasn't likely to work for him, and tossed me on my ear because of it.
i need to stop flipping out over it, though, and just get to work in finding a better doctor on monday....
i mean, the first thing he asked me was if i was bisexual. normally, they ask about it, but they don't make assumptions, and the way he asked was sort of slimy.
i responded with the truth: i'm asexual. well, i've been on testosterone blockers for four years. i don't even masturbate any more - i probably couldn't, at this point, if i tried, but i haven't tried in....a long time. i get the odd dream, but they're separated by months. and while the refrain for the last few decades has been "actually, women LIKE sex"....the truth is you need to put a "some" in there. i don't really have much interest in lying around while somebody else gets off on me. sorry.
i hadn't had sex in almost five years before i went on the testosterone blockers in the first place. the transition hasn't altered my sex life in any way, because there wasn't one to begin with. and, going off hormones isn't going to have me develop one - i'd just start masturbating again. the reasons i'm not interested in sex aren't at all connected to my gender identity. i went through a relationship about ten years ago that just completely soured me on the whole idea of relationships, and i've been single by choice ever since. they're really completely unrelated things.
but, i got a huge frown from it, as though i was stating i wasn't of any use to him.
--
just to clarify: i have absolutely no sex drive, but i actually prefer it that way, as it clears up more energy for other things. i'm not asexual because of the lack of sex drive, but the lack of a sex drive makes me more comfortable in my asexuality. you interact with people - of whatever gender - a whole lot differently when you already know that you'll never, ever have sex with them. sometimes, there's a little work in establishing that, but once it is established, it just really clears the air. there's no pretensions. no fantasies. and you figure out quickly who actually likes who for you are and who has ulterior motives. call me a eunuch if you want, and tell me i'm an anomaly in our current culture if it makes you feel good about yourself, but i'm happier with no sex drive.
if i had to choose only one of the three drugs to take, i'd pick the testosterone blocker over the estrogen or progesterone immediately. that's one of the more profound conclusions i've come to. i haven't been reflecting here as much as i was a few years ago, but i've been thinking about that quite a bit. the feminizing aspects are desirable to me and everything, but i'm at the age where there's not really any actual consequence of them. if i were to go through the process of actual sexual reassignment now, i'd be in an age category where sex is infrequent by the time i got done, sort of thing. and, then, what have i accomplished besides having to squat in public? but the chemical castration has had really positive effects on my mental well being. that's the thing i'm going to fight the hardest to maintain.
i just find the whole thing to be such a huge waste of time. in the end, i'm going to die, and do i really want my life to have been focused on sex and labour? god, what a horribly trivial existence! i want there to be art, writings - things of substance left behind. this idea of life as a hedonistic adventure is just revolting to me. i know it's our culture. it's the way our society spins. but i'm really pretty comprehensive in my rejection of our culture and society, aren't i? it shouldn't really be that surprising, when you put it into the context of what i think about every other component of the world we inhabit.
i think i'd be more likely to fall in love with a robot than a human, but i doubt i'm going to live to see the day...
in the end, transhumanism will probably abolish sex.
i'm ahead of the curve on this and i know it. same as all the other things....
--
when i was a kid, i used to often hear that
"women can do anything men can do except pee standing up."
my dad told me that. often. i think there's quite a bit of truth to it.
if i really sit down and carefully weigh what life is going to be like pre and post srs, i have to honestly conclude that the only thing that's actually going to change is the peeing standing up part......and for the months of therapy and healing and everything else involved, it's hard to come up with a logical argument in favour of it.
there's an emotional component, but i've never been driven by emotion, i've always been driven by logic.
if it was 15 years ago, the calculation would be different, but it's pointless now, i'm too old.
--
so, i had a bad appointment today...
i'm done flipping out over it for now. back to work.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
real life things happened less this week than i was expecting.
things i got done:
1) groceries.
2) set a dr's apt
3) cleaned
4) laundry
*5) attend dr's apt
* tomorrow. no, our public health insurance up here isn't so outstanding that you get an appointment in a day, i happen to have been playing phone tag and she'd already pencilled me in because she couldn't get a hold of me. well, i don't actually have a phone, so reaching me in real time with a phone number is actually impossible at the moment. yeah, how's that for being a hipster? no phone. ahahaha...
i honestly don't want to pay for the phone. that's really the crux of it. i pay roughly $20/yr for a mailbox. i will eventually get a phone and connect it to the voip service; for now, i'm using the leave-a-message-i'll-call-back approach, which creates problems when the other side is always busy.
the other thing is that i don't trust phones. i'm in the "harmless, but monitored out of interest" category. i don't need the cia following my gps around. it's just unsettling. i don't know how so many people can just shrug it off.
things i didn't get done:
1) buying wood. i can't; the bus is on detour. in a few weeks.
2) compost dropoff. i would have had to go this morning, but i slept-in. i leave my compost in the freezer until it builds up, then drop it off to some kids that use it to feed hungry people. i think it's technically a muslim group, but i don't get the impression that they're proselytizing. i'm solely interested in the feeding hungry people part. yeah, the state should do it, but if you've been in a food bank you know that items like fresh vegetables aren't actually there. it's mostly about dumping near expired goods. i don't like it, but i understand that the thatcher-reagan system is designed for religious groups to fill this void. given that reality, i'd much rather support a minority muslim group than a dominant christian group. balances of power and whatnot. so, i've got these giant bags of frozen banana peels and stuff and i need to walk 2-3 km to get them to there. leaky banana peel juice is kind of nasty, so i tend to prefer to go in the spring and fall when it's close to 0 to minimize the melt. i'll take this out next week, when the temperature gets back down to 3 or 4.
anyways....that means i've got all day to record, and i will! some kind of clarity something or other should be up before midnight...
things i got done:
1) groceries.
2) set a dr's apt
3) cleaned
4) laundry
*5) attend dr's apt
* tomorrow. no, our public health insurance up here isn't so outstanding that you get an appointment in a day, i happen to have been playing phone tag and she'd already pencilled me in because she couldn't get a hold of me. well, i don't actually have a phone, so reaching me in real time with a phone number is actually impossible at the moment. yeah, how's that for being a hipster? no phone. ahahaha...
i honestly don't want to pay for the phone. that's really the crux of it. i pay roughly $20/yr for a mailbox. i will eventually get a phone and connect it to the voip service; for now, i'm using the leave-a-message-i'll-call-back approach, which creates problems when the other side is always busy.
the other thing is that i don't trust phones. i'm in the "harmless, but monitored out of interest" category. i don't need the cia following my gps around. it's just unsettling. i don't know how so many people can just shrug it off.
things i didn't get done:
1) buying wood. i can't; the bus is on detour. in a few weeks.
2) compost dropoff. i would have had to go this morning, but i slept-in. i leave my compost in the freezer until it builds up, then drop it off to some kids that use it to feed hungry people. i think it's technically a muslim group, but i don't get the impression that they're proselytizing. i'm solely interested in the feeding hungry people part. yeah, the state should do it, but if you've been in a food bank you know that items like fresh vegetables aren't actually there. it's mostly about dumping near expired goods. i don't like it, but i understand that the thatcher-reagan system is designed for religious groups to fill this void. given that reality, i'd much rather support a minority muslim group than a dominant christian group. balances of power and whatnot. so, i've got these giant bags of frozen banana peels and stuff and i need to walk 2-3 km to get them to there. leaky banana peel juice is kind of nasty, so i tend to prefer to go in the spring and fall when it's close to 0 to minimize the melt. i'll take this out next week, when the temperature gets back down to 3 or 4.
anyways....that means i've got all day to record, and i will! some kind of clarity something or other should be up before midnight...
got some student loan mail, today.
minimum payment: $1100 month. right. ahahahahaha....
i qualify as very low income, it's not really a serious concern. i'm actually not sure if the best thing to do is to ignore it or to apply for further loan forgiveness, but i'm going to ignore it for now. i mean, they can try to debit my account if they want, but they're going to get nsf every single time.
obviously, if i catch them doing that, i'll have to call them. until then? meh...
i'm in the "zero chance of paying back a dime" category.
if it comes down to it, i'm more likely to nail gun my forehead to the cra building in protest, kind of thing.
i didn't want to get in this mess and did a lot of juggling a few years ago to avoid it. what happened was my father pleaded with me to go back to school around '08. i really, really didn't want to, because i didn't want to take on more loans for more useless schooling. i was aware at the time that it wasn't going to get me any closer to accomplishing my goals in life. however, he convinced me to go back by telling me he'd pay tuition and rent. that gave me the following choice:
1) work bullshit jobs to pay rent and do music in spare time
2) go to school and have rent paid for and do music in spare time
school doesn't have strict schedules. nobody yells at you for showing up late. you don't have to deal with people. it's a better choice....so long as you don't have to pay for it.
so, i took him up on his offer.
about a month before classes started, he tells me the market crashed (this is the infamous '08 crash - it's true, it did crash, and pretty badly) and he can't pay for it in real time, but if i take out a loan then he'll pay it back later. at this point, i'm kind of screwed. i need to make a quick choice - find *immediate* employment, or take out a loan. i'd been living off a few thousand dollars i had put away for the previous few months, waiting for the rent money to start coming in in september.
finding immediate employment didn't work, so i took out a loan under the promise that he'd pay it back when i was done school.
now, he's dead (and left me basically nothing) and i have a $50K student loan that i'm never going to pay back.
i can blame myself on some level. i did make an error. i sort of had little choice but to take the loan by the time september came around, as it was the only option i had to pay rent. however, i shouldn't have put myself in a situation where i was so reliant on money coming in. in my defence, my father was always very reliable in the past. i had little doubt in believing him.
unfortunately, he badly misjudged his financial situation and lead me around by the nose a little, convincing me that he'd eventually be able to pay it down for me when the market recovered. as we all know, the market never really recovered. i held on to some resentment about this for quite a while, but in hindsight i have to come to terms with the fact that it was a function of bad planning and i'm as much at fault (moreso for not taking control of the situation for myself) as he is.
that doesn't change the fact that i can't pay this back, and i knew i was never going to pay it back as i was signing up for it.
i'll let them do the work in really tracking me down....
i'm not exactly up to date on the letter of loan forgiveness legislation, but it will no doubt kick in eventually.
don't worry - i'll check out what's offered at the university of windsor before i start nail gunning myself anywhere.
but for now, i'm ignoring it...
if i can get enough music finished before they find me, that might be what i want to end up doing, anyways.
i mean, i realize going to school isn't going to help me accomplish any of my current life goals, but there's going to be a point where these things are going to be more aligned. maybe around the age of 40 or so. i wouldn't mind living the last thirty years of my life as an associate prof somewhere, but if i don't get the music out of my system then i'm never going to have my head focused there enough to delve into it.
i'm an A+ student when i want to be. the problem is i've historically usually wanted to spend my time doing something else. the idea of advancing through these departments has really not appealed to me. but i'm well aware that i will eventually reach a point where i do want to be an A+ student because i will want to get somewhere in some department..
conversely, i don't see any future in an employment role whatsoever. there's nothing worthwhile to it. no goals, no aspirations...just a waste of time.
at this point, considering the size of the existing debt, i don't care how old i am, or how much debt it produces, i'll always pick school over employment so long as the option exists.
minimum payment: $1100 month. right. ahahahahaha....
i qualify as very low income, it's not really a serious concern. i'm actually not sure if the best thing to do is to ignore it or to apply for further loan forgiveness, but i'm going to ignore it for now. i mean, they can try to debit my account if they want, but they're going to get nsf every single time.
obviously, if i catch them doing that, i'll have to call them. until then? meh...
i'm in the "zero chance of paying back a dime" category.
if it comes down to it, i'm more likely to nail gun my forehead to the cra building in protest, kind of thing.
i didn't want to get in this mess and did a lot of juggling a few years ago to avoid it. what happened was my father pleaded with me to go back to school around '08. i really, really didn't want to, because i didn't want to take on more loans for more useless schooling. i was aware at the time that it wasn't going to get me any closer to accomplishing my goals in life. however, he convinced me to go back by telling me he'd pay tuition and rent. that gave me the following choice:
1) work bullshit jobs to pay rent and do music in spare time
2) go to school and have rent paid for and do music in spare time
school doesn't have strict schedules. nobody yells at you for showing up late. you don't have to deal with people. it's a better choice....so long as you don't have to pay for it.
so, i took him up on his offer.
about a month before classes started, he tells me the market crashed (this is the infamous '08 crash - it's true, it did crash, and pretty badly) and he can't pay for it in real time, but if i take out a loan then he'll pay it back later. at this point, i'm kind of screwed. i need to make a quick choice - find *immediate* employment, or take out a loan. i'd been living off a few thousand dollars i had put away for the previous few months, waiting for the rent money to start coming in in september.
finding immediate employment didn't work, so i took out a loan under the promise that he'd pay it back when i was done school.
now, he's dead (and left me basically nothing) and i have a $50K student loan that i'm never going to pay back.
i can blame myself on some level. i did make an error. i sort of had little choice but to take the loan by the time september came around, as it was the only option i had to pay rent. however, i shouldn't have put myself in a situation where i was so reliant on money coming in. in my defence, my father was always very reliable in the past. i had little doubt in believing him.
unfortunately, he badly misjudged his financial situation and lead me around by the nose a little, convincing me that he'd eventually be able to pay it down for me when the market recovered. as we all know, the market never really recovered. i held on to some resentment about this for quite a while, but in hindsight i have to come to terms with the fact that it was a function of bad planning and i'm as much at fault (moreso for not taking control of the situation for myself) as he is.
that doesn't change the fact that i can't pay this back, and i knew i was never going to pay it back as i was signing up for it.
i'll let them do the work in really tracking me down....
i'm not exactly up to date on the letter of loan forgiveness legislation, but it will no doubt kick in eventually.
don't worry - i'll check out what's offered at the university of windsor before i start nail gunning myself anywhere.
but for now, i'm ignoring it...
if i can get enough music finished before they find me, that might be what i want to end up doing, anyways.
i mean, i realize going to school isn't going to help me accomplish any of my current life goals, but there's going to be a point where these things are going to be more aligned. maybe around the age of 40 or so. i wouldn't mind living the last thirty years of my life as an associate prof somewhere, but if i don't get the music out of my system then i'm never going to have my head focused there enough to delve into it.
i'm an A+ student when i want to be. the problem is i've historically usually wanted to spend my time doing something else. the idea of advancing through these departments has really not appealed to me. but i'm well aware that i will eventually reach a point where i do want to be an A+ student because i will want to get somewhere in some department..
conversely, i don't see any future in an employment role whatsoever. there's nothing worthwhile to it. no goals, no aspirations...just a waste of time.
at this point, considering the size of the existing debt, i don't care how old i am, or how much debt it produces, i'll always pick school over employment so long as the option exists.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
just another thing to point out - it's rather obvious that that guy "matt" is working from the inside, and his job is to eat up time with dumb questions. he may even be prompting at points.
there may be little thought or desire put into really masking it. but, if you're curious, this is also very obvious,.
there may be little thought or desire put into really masking it. but, if you're curious, this is also very obvious,.
lol. actually, no.
there's construction on the main street about a block from my place. normally, the bus would go right through there, but it's detoured quite a ways around due to the construction.
i'm going to be carrying a significant amount of wood home. i could handle a block or two, but it's simply too far to walk.
so, i guess i'll have to wait until the construction is done. it should only be a week or two.
guess i'll do laundry.
i mean, this shelf is going to hold nearly 2000 cds. i don't have that many anymore, but i'm thinking ahead. there's five lengthy pieces of wood and 22 shelves involved. i can't be walking over a kilometre back with it.
there's construction on the main street about a block from my place. normally, the bus would go right through there, but it's detoured quite a ways around due to the construction.
i'm going to be carrying a significant amount of wood home. i could handle a block or two, but it's simply too far to walk.
so, i guess i'll have to wait until the construction is done. it should only be a week or two.
guess i'll do laundry.
i mean, this shelf is going to hold nearly 2000 cds. i don't have that many anymore, but i'm thinking ahead. there's five lengthy pieces of wood and 22 shelves involved. i can't be walking over a kilometre back with it.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
doing real life things this week.
today, i got some serious groceries done. still have to clean, and finalize the schematics for the cd shelf. i also set a doctor's appointment.
tomorrow, i get the wood for the cd shelf. i'll probably also do laundry.
thursday morning, i'll be transporting compost out to the compost people. they're some kids that grow tomatoes and give it away to hungry people. it's better than dumping the coffee grinds and tomato ends in the dumpster, where the organic material simply becomes useless.
friday, i have a doctor's appointment.
seems trivial. but i actually have a hard time making sure i'm doing things like this regularly. they tend to sit. forever.
i might get a mix of clarity done over the next few days, but that's uncertain.
i'm still not clear what i'm doing about drilling.
i'm kind of hoping home depot has a drill bit where i can just get them to do the holes. even if it's a buck a hole or something, it's better and probably even cheaper in the long run.
if not, something i'll want to check when i'm there is the price of bits. there are $20 drills in the pawn shops, but they don't have bits. i only really need the one bit. there's consequently basically no chance i'm going to buy a drill set. if i can just get one bit there at a reasonable price, i probably will and then get the $20 drill.
if i can't get the one bit? at the moment, i'm leaning towards finding some kind of co-op as a preferable option. surely, there's somewhere around here where i can just take a few pieces of wood in and drill some holes in them.
the other stuff i built is just screwing screws into particle board. yes, it's cracked a little, but it's the kind of thing where it's like "who cares?" - so long as it's sturdy. a makeup shelf doesn't take a lot of force. the stove is holding up the piece with the coffee maker. the little table i'm going to make is likely going to be lodged between a chair and a wall. these are items that don't need to be particularly sturdy, so long as they're handled intelligently.
a cd shelf is a different animal because it has to be standalone and has to keep up quite a bit of weight. so, i need to be drilling cleaner holes into bigger pieces of actual wood. i'll probably use particle board for the shelves, but i want solid wood for the bases. i'm probably simply not going to be able to screw the pieces together by hand.
i might try, though, if it comes down to spending $100 on a drill and bit set that i'm going to use a handful of times and then toss in a closet for twenty years.
actually, i'm going to need to drill holes for the pegs, too...
hrmmn.
i don't even know what size they are. i should figure that out before i go.
those shoes are also dead, the rain exposed holes in the bottom of both shoes, but i wasn't expecting them to last long, with the amount of walking that i do. these were very cheaply made shoes. i'm going to let them dry out and keep them for short in/out use, but they're useless for going more than a block.
i got a pair of pink cons about the same time, but i haven't been wearing them much because i tend to get stuck in one pair. those are now the main shoes, but i want to keep them out of the wet, too. so i'm mostly moving to those children's rain boots i got for the fall/winter/spring.
the cheap shoes were actually 2 for 1 so i already have another pair of cheap shoes that i can wear down to nothing for next year....
today, i got some serious groceries done. still have to clean, and finalize the schematics for the cd shelf. i also set a doctor's appointment.
tomorrow, i get the wood for the cd shelf. i'll probably also do laundry.
thursday morning, i'll be transporting compost out to the compost people. they're some kids that grow tomatoes and give it away to hungry people. it's better than dumping the coffee grinds and tomato ends in the dumpster, where the organic material simply becomes useless.
friday, i have a doctor's appointment.
seems trivial. but i actually have a hard time making sure i'm doing things like this regularly. they tend to sit. forever.
i might get a mix of clarity done over the next few days, but that's uncertain.
i'm still not clear what i'm doing about drilling.
i'm kind of hoping home depot has a drill bit where i can just get them to do the holes. even if it's a buck a hole or something, it's better and probably even cheaper in the long run.
if not, something i'll want to check when i'm there is the price of bits. there are $20 drills in the pawn shops, but they don't have bits. i only really need the one bit. there's consequently basically no chance i'm going to buy a drill set. if i can just get one bit there at a reasonable price, i probably will and then get the $20 drill.
if i can't get the one bit? at the moment, i'm leaning towards finding some kind of co-op as a preferable option. surely, there's somewhere around here where i can just take a few pieces of wood in and drill some holes in them.
the other stuff i built is just screwing screws into particle board. yes, it's cracked a little, but it's the kind of thing where it's like "who cares?" - so long as it's sturdy. a makeup shelf doesn't take a lot of force. the stove is holding up the piece with the coffee maker. the little table i'm going to make is likely going to be lodged between a chair and a wall. these are items that don't need to be particularly sturdy, so long as they're handled intelligently.
a cd shelf is a different animal because it has to be standalone and has to keep up quite a bit of weight. so, i need to be drilling cleaner holes into bigger pieces of actual wood. i'll probably use particle board for the shelves, but i want solid wood for the bases. i'm probably simply not going to be able to screw the pieces together by hand.
i might try, though, if it comes down to spending $100 on a drill and bit set that i'm going to use a handful of times and then toss in a closet for twenty years.
actually, i'm going to need to drill holes for the pegs, too...
hrmmn.
i don't even know what size they are. i should figure that out before i go.
those shoes are also dead, the rain exposed holes in the bottom of both shoes, but i wasn't expecting them to last long, with the amount of walking that i do. these were very cheaply made shoes. i'm going to let them dry out and keep them for short in/out use, but they're useless for going more than a block.
i got a pair of pink cons about the same time, but i haven't been wearing them much because i tend to get stuck in one pair. those are now the main shoes, but i want to keep them out of the wet, too. so i'm mostly moving to those children's rain boots i got for the fall/winter/spring.
the cheap shoes were actually 2 for 1 so i already have another pair of cheap shoes that i can wear down to nothing for next year....
the usb card works, so i really did get a functioning usb 2.0 card from china for $4. it's not fixing the problem i hoped it would, though.
i have a really old motherboard with usb 1.0 slots on it. this is expanded with a 2.0 hub. i want to connect a 3.0 external drive to that hub. it works, but it's very slow through the hub - much slower than it is directly connecting it to the 1.0. it's a tb drive. now, the 1.1 is workable, but it means i have to leave the drive in an unheated area. the point of the exercise is to bring the drive into the living room, where i don't have to worry about it possibly freezing. i checked the temperature in there last winter and it's not actually that cold but i'm uneasy about it - even though it may even be better to leave it in a chilled environment.
i knew it was the hub the whole time, but i was hoping that upgrading to a 2.0 card would make it a little better as it would need to convert one fewer times. that didn't work out, which leads me to believe it's a model problem rather than a speed problem. in other words, i need to try a new hub.
for the $4, i can't complain, though. it's a valid upgrade and it may find a use before the motherboard crashes.
there's an added annoyance, though, which is that it doesn't read the wireless mouse or keyboard through the pci card until windows launches. it reads them on bootup when plugged directly into the motherboard. so, if i do get another hub, i'll probably leave them both active - the old one through the motherboard and the new one through the 2.0 card.
regardless, the actual pc in there is now built to it's maximum specs. there's nothing else the motherboard can take besides a negligible increase in clock speed. as old as the machine is, i have little reason to think it's going to die any time soon. it's still useful a backup pc, so it's still useful to have the 2.0 card in there. besides a little table that i plan on building in the next week, that's the last thing i wanted to do in that room...
i have a really old motherboard with usb 1.0 slots on it. this is expanded with a 2.0 hub. i want to connect a 3.0 external drive to that hub. it works, but it's very slow through the hub - much slower than it is directly connecting it to the 1.0. it's a tb drive. now, the 1.1 is workable, but it means i have to leave the drive in an unheated area. the point of the exercise is to bring the drive into the living room, where i don't have to worry about it possibly freezing. i checked the temperature in there last winter and it's not actually that cold but i'm uneasy about it - even though it may even be better to leave it in a chilled environment.
i knew it was the hub the whole time, but i was hoping that upgrading to a 2.0 card would make it a little better as it would need to convert one fewer times. that didn't work out, which leads me to believe it's a model problem rather than a speed problem. in other words, i need to try a new hub.
for the $4, i can't complain, though. it's a valid upgrade and it may find a use before the motherboard crashes.
there's an added annoyance, though, which is that it doesn't read the wireless mouse or keyboard through the pci card until windows launches. it reads them on bootup when plugged directly into the motherboard. so, if i do get another hub, i'll probably leave them both active - the old one through the motherboard and the new one through the 2.0 card.
regardless, the actual pc in there is now built to it's maximum specs. there's nothing else the motherboard can take besides a negligible increase in clock speed. as old as the machine is, i have little reason to think it's going to die any time soon. it's still useful a backup pc, so it's still useful to have the 2.0 card in there. besides a little table that i plan on building in the next week, that's the last thing i wanted to do in that room...
heat's on earlier this year than i can remember in quite a while. i'm used to turning it on mid october or early november. i actually don't think i've ever turned it on the first week of october....
*shrug*. there was an abrupt shift rather than a slow cool down. it's just not going to hold over 21 in here very long when it's below ten degrees outside. and it doesn't look like it's warming back up to the point that i can get the heat back off.
it might not be on very strong for the next few weeks, but it's definitely triggered itself at 21 degrees. hopefully it's off early.
*shrug*. there was an abrupt shift rather than a slow cool down. it's just not going to hold over 21 in here very long when it's below ten degrees outside. and it doesn't look like it's warming back up to the point that i can get the heat back off.
it might not be on very strong for the next few weeks, but it's definitely triggered itself at 21 degrees. hopefully it's off early.
it's optics, right. the pentagon yells "cut our budget!", and the house rejects their request. that way, they have a mandate from the people. it's absurd, but most of the political theatre that we're asked to take seriously is no less absurd. this is the concept of "democracy" that rings hollow through the elites.
but, again, it brings up the important question: is the government in charge of the pentagon, or is the pentagon in charge of the government?
but, again, it brings up the important question: is the government in charge of the pentagon, or is the pentagon in charge of the government?
it's hard to know what's going on here.
i have a grandmother who's not much younger than the woman in the video and who nobody doubts will live to be 100. she worked her whole life as a bank teller and retired with a sufficient pension. however, inflation has eaten into the pension and she now also gets government money. she's doing ok right now, but the longer she lives the more likely she is to find herself in a situation where she has to choose between rent and food.
is it that out of the blue to think her son bought her the car but won't or can't give her a monthly check? well, the answer to that may actually lie in the accounting laws of the state - the "tough on welfare" laws that have become exceedingly strict since the late 90s. i live in ontario, which is ridiculously progressive with public subsidies compared to almost anywhere else on the continent, and i can tell you that, here, a monthly amount would be treated as income and deducted from assistance. however, a gift can get around that problem.
so, let's say she needs $1000 to pay her monthly expenses (rent, food, rx, utilities. etc) and only gets $700 from combined pension and government assistance. that scenario is extremely common and absolutely reasonable to assume is probably the cause of her panhandling. if her son were to give her $300 a month, they'd probably reduce the government part of her pension by almost as much. this is a result of the "tough on welfare" approach; the assumption is that if she's getting money from another source, she must be ripping off the system. in order for her to get the $1000, she'd basically have to get off assistance altogether. however, there's a huge difference between giving your elderly mother $300/month and giving her $1000/month. the latter could very well be outside of the son's actual budget.
a new car is probably over the yearly limit for gifts, which is probably less than $5000. however, buying a car and leaving it in the son's name and letting her drive it (and then maybe giving it to a teenager a few years down the road) is entirely legal.
i'm reading into things a lot, but this guy should have given her the opportunity to explain before he started yelling at her. the system that elderly people have to wade through to generate enough money to pay for the things they need is full of ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy (made far more restrictive by welfare reform) that are designed with the assumption that everybody is a cheat. she might be able to live comfortably with the state and her son splitting the cost, but the state makes it very difficult for that kind of arrangement to happen.
i have a grandmother who's not much younger than the woman in the video and who nobody doubts will live to be 100. she worked her whole life as a bank teller and retired with a sufficient pension. however, inflation has eaten into the pension and she now also gets government money. she's doing ok right now, but the longer she lives the more likely she is to find herself in a situation where she has to choose between rent and food.
is it that out of the blue to think her son bought her the car but won't or can't give her a monthly check? well, the answer to that may actually lie in the accounting laws of the state - the "tough on welfare" laws that have become exceedingly strict since the late 90s. i live in ontario, which is ridiculously progressive with public subsidies compared to almost anywhere else on the continent, and i can tell you that, here, a monthly amount would be treated as income and deducted from assistance. however, a gift can get around that problem.
so, let's say she needs $1000 to pay her monthly expenses (rent, food, rx, utilities. etc) and only gets $700 from combined pension and government assistance. that scenario is extremely common and absolutely reasonable to assume is probably the cause of her panhandling. if her son were to give her $300 a month, they'd probably reduce the government part of her pension by almost as much. this is a result of the "tough on welfare" approach; the assumption is that if she's getting money from another source, she must be ripping off the system. in order for her to get the $1000, she'd basically have to get off assistance altogether. however, there's a huge difference between giving your elderly mother $300/month and giving her $1000/month. the latter could very well be outside of the son's actual budget.
a new car is probably over the yearly limit for gifts, which is probably less than $5000. however, buying a car and leaving it in the son's name and letting her drive it (and then maybe giving it to a teenager a few years down the road) is entirely legal.
i'm reading into things a lot, but this guy should have given her the opportunity to explain before he started yelling at her. the system that elderly people have to wade through to generate enough money to pay for the things they need is full of ridiculous amounts of bureaucracy (made far more restrictive by welfare reform) that are designed with the assumption that everybody is a cheat. she might be able to live comfortably with the state and her son splitting the cost, but the state makes it very difficult for that kind of arrangement to happen.
deathtokoalas
ok.
was there any specific reason they picked the performance to disrupt, though? were there specific authorities present?
generally, patrons of the arts tend to be rather liberal - and i mean liberal in the actual meaning of the word. even the self-identified conservatives in the audience would mostly fit any reasonable definition of the word "liberal" - and especially when it comes to the issue of race. so, it's kind of singing to the choir, if you see what i'm saying.
...unless they were targeting somebody, specifically, that they knew was in attendance. that's a different action.
if this is just a pr stunt...it's just a pr stunt. they'll get their ten minutes, think they're raising serious awareness and then be otherwise ignored.
if they're following somebody around, on the other hand, and there's going to be more of this, there's a chance it could get to that person.
Jimmy
I think they just saw an orchestral performance as something "white". And they've been twisted by the media into divisive action. If anyone sees this as brave or inspiring, they should do some research into real protest. This is a real-life extension of so-called 'hashtag activists'. In this age social protests last all of 15 minutes.
deathtokoalas
see, that's a big problem but i would recognize it as a corollary of the current dominance of identity politics on the so-called "left". it's really bogging things down very badly. i mean, if they were expecting to walk in there and find a bunch of racist big money white supremacist dixiecrats, i hope they were sorely disappointed. if that's what they were looking for, in st. louis, i'd suggest a strip club, not a place for the arts. despite maybe being a little irritated by the interruption, i'd suspect most people in the audience probably agree with them that black lives aren't worthless. the perception that a symphony is a place to find people that will disagree is strange and worrying, as it implies a lack of communication and understanding across a stratifying class divide.
my interpretation of socialism looks at symphonic music as something everybody should have the time and education to be able to enjoy, not something that should be vilified as a class marker. i'm not sure where, on the left, that kind of attitude would be coming from. like so much of what passes as leftism nowadays, that strikes me as something characteristic of the reactionary right.
on the other hand, nobody should be surprised about a return to gilded era economics producing a return to a gilded-era type of politics.
history doesn't end.
but if you repeat the same mistakes, you will produce the same consequences.
virgil
yeah they associate classical music with rich white people
deathtokoalas
again: that seems outlandish, but i've spent enough time with protest groups to realize that it's actually probably true. it's very sad, but it's reflective of our collective decision to stop funding public education.
Ishmael
It wasn't a PR stunt, it was a protest done to raise awareness and support for the cause. Protests have been held all across the city. Parks, government buildings, police stations, concerts, highways, sporting events and now the symphony. Most of the protesters at the symphony were white. The organizer is white. Yet many Youtube commenters claim they were racist for disturbing the nice people who paid money to see they symphony. There is a serious problem in America if somebody's right to watch a symphony in peace is more important that someone's right to live or right to due process from the legal system. The protest's organizers have never said or suggested they picked the symphony because "rich white people" would be there as +virgil starkwell and +Jimmy Kelly suggest. That's something the "conservatives" have made up to discredit the protest.
The protesters are saying "Black Lives Matter" not b/c white lives don't, but because if you look at statistics or the recently rash of videos showing unarmed black men being killed by police, or simply browse the comments left on this video, it's not clear that society believes this is true. If I say that McDonald's is delicious, does that mean I think Burger King is repulsive? Absolutely not. Then why should anybody believe that someone saying Black Lives Matter is insinuating that other lives don't? It's a foolish argument that people make to take our attention off the actual issue at hand. Don't fall into that trap.
deathtokoalas
well, there's not much danger i'm going to fall into that trap. that's not really what i'm concerned about.
i'm just wondering if you could build a causal relationship for me between disrupting a symphony and having your concerns taken seriously. was there somebody in attendance that you were hoping to gain the attention of? because, otherwise, i don't really grasp the tactic very well.
lednerg
The organizer and another woman had previously done a small protest at a Cardinals game, holding a couple signs, and they were shouted down by angry fans. The St Louis Symphony seemed to be a more welcoming venue and they were correct.
Getting my info from http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_d3d4e0b0-4c48-11e4-bc55-275aa0a96f33.html
deathtokoalas
it's not really a question of trying to play off "listening rights" (and i guess there's a personal property rights argument hidden in there somewhere) against "the right to exist". that's the same kind of dumb argument as "black matters--->white doesn't".
it's more a question as to determining the relevancy of the target.
i have to be honest that i don't really see the relevancy of the target, and that the association of symphonies with white upper class music suggestion is the only thing that really does make sense to me - other than there not being much thought put into it at all.
i mean, while they were protesting the audience of the symphony, they could have been doing something more productive, right? that's obvious, right? so, why weren't they?
again: my time spent in protest movements suggests there is something to the idea of the symphony being targeted due to class and race concerns. it's not "racist", i'm not going to throw that around, it's more....stupid.
in the interview, she basically states she's going after the white upper class of st. louis, as if she honestly thinks that a bunch of doctors and engineers have any ability to stop police brutality, probably by all thinking positively together really hard. hey, did you hear about that experiment at the university that doesn't actually exist where a bunch of people thought positive thoughts and it actually happened?
stupidity is the right word. utter naivete; no systemic analysis. these people have no power. it doesn't matter if they know what's going on or not, you have to get to the systems of power. it's just disturbing the peace.
the civil rights movement wasn't half successful because it disrupted symphonies.
the civil rights movement was half successful because of open carry laws that had black people walking around the streets with assault rifles, which scared the fuck out of white people and got the feds to step in before another civil war happened.
here's an idea: instead of disrupting symphonies, why don't you interrupt a city hall meeting? crash a legislature? blockade a police station?
because you'd get arrested. exactly. the moment you do anything that disrupts any actual power, you end up in jail. so, instead, you go and waste your time pissing people off, thinking it's some kind of compromise.
but it's not a compromise. it's really simply a waste of time. it's counterproductive in the way that you're perceived. and, instead of grasping that, you further your isolation by attacking the dominant perspective.
it's not fucked up that people reacted badly. it was a stupid thing to do, and you're rightfully being called out for it. get it, learn from it, stop doing it, move on.
it's really remarkable. you do an action to try and influence public opinion, public opinion attacks you for it and then you say you're outraged by the public's reaction. if you really cared so much about the public opinion, you'd take the time to alter your behaviour when the public rejects your tactics. you'd actually do things that you think would influence the public opinion, rather than just irk people. yet, you don't. so, really, why don't you just tie yourself to a battering ram and slam yourself against a concrete wall over and over again, then? you might start to like it after a while, it just takes some time to get used to.
in order for anything to change on this continent, the most important realization that must be come to is that there is no democracy on this continent. the more you feed into this lie, the more you divide each other in ways that makes you easier to conquer, the more you uphold the status quo.
i don't expect you to get it, i've been over this ad nauseum, i know i'm talking to the wall.
like, honestly.
1. convince wealthy people racism is bad.
2. ?????
3. equality
that's basically what's going on.
Ishmael
Protesters have interrupted city hall meetings. They've also interrupted a city council meeting. They've marched in Clayton, which is where the St. Louis County government is located. They've also protested outside a police station...and Ferguson city hall.
The civil rights movement would not have been successful without white supporters (in both the public and in political office), without thousands marching in unity, without sit-ins, without the show of force you mentioned, etc. The movement would've been an abysmal failure.and black Americans would've continued to be attacked, killed, lynched, hung, fed to ravenous dogs, if it was just black Americans with guns. Hell, in Ferguson, the government showed they are willing to bring in the military to protect THE POLICE. When police were the aggressors in nearly every confrontation. So in order to foster any change, the protests have to come in several forms.
This can't simply a black/white issue. It's an issue for all Americans. Allow one group to have their rights and freedoms trampled, and it won't be very long before it expands to other groups. So yes, wealthy people need to be told that racism is bad b/c some are so comfortable in their own bubbles that they don't know what's going on. The protests are about awareness. Sure, plenty of irked and aggravated by the protests. But society rarely changes when everybody is comfortable and cozy.
deathtokoalas
that's right, and they'll bomb you from the sky if the military asks for it, too - whether people are aware of it or not. the way they think is that the more aware you are of the threat of being bombed, the more frightened you'll be of it. you probably know this, you're just not willing to come to terms with it. there were complex power relations in the civil rights struggle, but the reality is that white solidarity had almost nothing to do with it - unless you're talking about white solidarity in the north. dixiecrats, and whatnot.
there's no future in "building awareness" through the kinds of actions that isolate and marginalize your position, and you'd agree that this is obvious if you weren't so blinded by reactionary right-wing self-righteousness. i have to go back to the previous point, in pointing out that it's really curious how you can state that
1) The protests are about awareness.
2) Sure, plenty of irked and aggravated by the protests.
without realizing that you're contradicting yourself.
but, again, i've been through this enough to know there's no use....
ok.
was there any specific reason they picked the performance to disrupt, though? were there specific authorities present?
generally, patrons of the arts tend to be rather liberal - and i mean liberal in the actual meaning of the word. even the self-identified conservatives in the audience would mostly fit any reasonable definition of the word "liberal" - and especially when it comes to the issue of race. so, it's kind of singing to the choir, if you see what i'm saying.
...unless they were targeting somebody, specifically, that they knew was in attendance. that's a different action.
if this is just a pr stunt...it's just a pr stunt. they'll get their ten minutes, think they're raising serious awareness and then be otherwise ignored.
if they're following somebody around, on the other hand, and there's going to be more of this, there's a chance it could get to that person.
Jimmy
I think they just saw an orchestral performance as something "white". And they've been twisted by the media into divisive action. If anyone sees this as brave or inspiring, they should do some research into real protest. This is a real-life extension of so-called 'hashtag activists'. In this age social protests last all of 15 minutes.
deathtokoalas
see, that's a big problem but i would recognize it as a corollary of the current dominance of identity politics on the so-called "left". it's really bogging things down very badly. i mean, if they were expecting to walk in there and find a bunch of racist big money white supremacist dixiecrats, i hope they were sorely disappointed. if that's what they were looking for, in st. louis, i'd suggest a strip club, not a place for the arts. despite maybe being a little irritated by the interruption, i'd suspect most people in the audience probably agree with them that black lives aren't worthless. the perception that a symphony is a place to find people that will disagree is strange and worrying, as it implies a lack of communication and understanding across a stratifying class divide.
my interpretation of socialism looks at symphonic music as something everybody should have the time and education to be able to enjoy, not something that should be vilified as a class marker. i'm not sure where, on the left, that kind of attitude would be coming from. like so much of what passes as leftism nowadays, that strikes me as something characteristic of the reactionary right.
on the other hand, nobody should be surprised about a return to gilded era economics producing a return to a gilded-era type of politics.
history doesn't end.
but if you repeat the same mistakes, you will produce the same consequences.
virgil
yeah they associate classical music with rich white people
deathtokoalas
again: that seems outlandish, but i've spent enough time with protest groups to realize that it's actually probably true. it's very sad, but it's reflective of our collective decision to stop funding public education.
Ishmael
It wasn't a PR stunt, it was a protest done to raise awareness and support for the cause. Protests have been held all across the city. Parks, government buildings, police stations, concerts, highways, sporting events and now the symphony. Most of the protesters at the symphony were white. The organizer is white. Yet many Youtube commenters claim they were racist for disturbing the nice people who paid money to see they symphony. There is a serious problem in America if somebody's right to watch a symphony in peace is more important that someone's right to live or right to due process from the legal system. The protest's organizers have never said or suggested they picked the symphony because "rich white people" would be there as +virgil starkwell and +Jimmy Kelly suggest. That's something the "conservatives" have made up to discredit the protest.
The protesters are saying "Black Lives Matter" not b/c white lives don't, but because if you look at statistics or the recently rash of videos showing unarmed black men being killed by police, or simply browse the comments left on this video, it's not clear that society believes this is true. If I say that McDonald's is delicious, does that mean I think Burger King is repulsive? Absolutely not. Then why should anybody believe that someone saying Black Lives Matter is insinuating that other lives don't? It's a foolish argument that people make to take our attention off the actual issue at hand. Don't fall into that trap.
deathtokoalas
well, there's not much danger i'm going to fall into that trap. that's not really what i'm concerned about.
i'm just wondering if you could build a causal relationship for me between disrupting a symphony and having your concerns taken seriously. was there somebody in attendance that you were hoping to gain the attention of? because, otherwise, i don't really grasp the tactic very well.
lednerg
The organizer and another woman had previously done a small protest at a Cardinals game, holding a couple signs, and they were shouted down by angry fans. The St Louis Symphony seemed to be a more welcoming venue and they were correct.
Getting my info from http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_d3d4e0b0-4c48-11e4-bc55-275aa0a96f33.html
deathtokoalas
it's not really a question of trying to play off "listening rights" (and i guess there's a personal property rights argument hidden in there somewhere) against "the right to exist". that's the same kind of dumb argument as "black matters--->white doesn't".
it's more a question as to determining the relevancy of the target.
i have to be honest that i don't really see the relevancy of the target, and that the association of symphonies with white upper class music suggestion is the only thing that really does make sense to me - other than there not being much thought put into it at all.
i mean, while they were protesting the audience of the symphony, they could have been doing something more productive, right? that's obvious, right? so, why weren't they?
again: my time spent in protest movements suggests there is something to the idea of the symphony being targeted due to class and race concerns. it's not "racist", i'm not going to throw that around, it's more....stupid.
in the interview, she basically states she's going after the white upper class of st. louis, as if she honestly thinks that a bunch of doctors and engineers have any ability to stop police brutality, probably by all thinking positively together really hard. hey, did you hear about that experiment at the university that doesn't actually exist where a bunch of people thought positive thoughts and it actually happened?
stupidity is the right word. utter naivete; no systemic analysis. these people have no power. it doesn't matter if they know what's going on or not, you have to get to the systems of power. it's just disturbing the peace.
the civil rights movement wasn't half successful because it disrupted symphonies.
the civil rights movement was half successful because of open carry laws that had black people walking around the streets with assault rifles, which scared the fuck out of white people and got the feds to step in before another civil war happened.
here's an idea: instead of disrupting symphonies, why don't you interrupt a city hall meeting? crash a legislature? blockade a police station?
because you'd get arrested. exactly. the moment you do anything that disrupts any actual power, you end up in jail. so, instead, you go and waste your time pissing people off, thinking it's some kind of compromise.
but it's not a compromise. it's really simply a waste of time. it's counterproductive in the way that you're perceived. and, instead of grasping that, you further your isolation by attacking the dominant perspective.
it's not fucked up that people reacted badly. it was a stupid thing to do, and you're rightfully being called out for it. get it, learn from it, stop doing it, move on.
it's really remarkable. you do an action to try and influence public opinion, public opinion attacks you for it and then you say you're outraged by the public's reaction. if you really cared so much about the public opinion, you'd take the time to alter your behaviour when the public rejects your tactics. you'd actually do things that you think would influence the public opinion, rather than just irk people. yet, you don't. so, really, why don't you just tie yourself to a battering ram and slam yourself against a concrete wall over and over again, then? you might start to like it after a while, it just takes some time to get used to.
in order for anything to change on this continent, the most important realization that must be come to is that there is no democracy on this continent. the more you feed into this lie, the more you divide each other in ways that makes you easier to conquer, the more you uphold the status quo.
i don't expect you to get it, i've been over this ad nauseum, i know i'm talking to the wall.
like, honestly.
1. convince wealthy people racism is bad.
2. ?????
3. equality
that's basically what's going on.
Ishmael
Protesters have interrupted city hall meetings. They've also interrupted a city council meeting. They've marched in Clayton, which is where the St. Louis County government is located. They've also protested outside a police station...and Ferguson city hall.
The civil rights movement would not have been successful without white supporters (in both the public and in political office), without thousands marching in unity, without sit-ins, without the show of force you mentioned, etc. The movement would've been an abysmal failure.and black Americans would've continued to be attacked, killed, lynched, hung, fed to ravenous dogs, if it was just black Americans with guns. Hell, in Ferguson, the government showed they are willing to bring in the military to protect THE POLICE. When police were the aggressors in nearly every confrontation. So in order to foster any change, the protests have to come in several forms.
This can't simply a black/white issue. It's an issue for all Americans. Allow one group to have their rights and freedoms trampled, and it won't be very long before it expands to other groups. So yes, wealthy people need to be told that racism is bad b/c some are so comfortable in their own bubbles that they don't know what's going on. The protests are about awareness. Sure, plenty of irked and aggravated by the protests. But society rarely changes when everybody is comfortable and cozy.
deathtokoalas
that's right, and they'll bomb you from the sky if the military asks for it, too - whether people are aware of it or not. the way they think is that the more aware you are of the threat of being bombed, the more frightened you'll be of it. you probably know this, you're just not willing to come to terms with it. there were complex power relations in the civil rights struggle, but the reality is that white solidarity had almost nothing to do with it - unless you're talking about white solidarity in the north. dixiecrats, and whatnot.
there's no future in "building awareness" through the kinds of actions that isolate and marginalize your position, and you'd agree that this is obvious if you weren't so blinded by reactionary right-wing self-righteousness. i have to go back to the previous point, in pointing out that it's really curious how you can state that
1) The protests are about awareness.
2) Sure, plenty of irked and aggravated by the protests.
without realizing that you're contradicting yourself.
but, again, i've been through this enough to know there's no use....
deathtokoalas
this is really not surprising, unfortunately. it is just more glaring evidence that the united states has crossed the line and is now a culturally fascist nation. the time when we could speak of americans as peace-loving citizens trapped under the control of the american government is past us. the culture, the society, the prevailing norms, the system of morals - it's all become utterly fascist in character.
the fascist states of the past all collapsed (or were destroyed) before they got to this point.
i would tell america to take a good look in the mirror, but it's too late. america does not see itself as the monster that it is, it sees itself as a pinnacle of power that constructs the right to do as it pleases from it's immense strength.
Adolf
Agreed. The fact that we hero-worship murderers, rapists and thugs that are too naive to see what they are doing and instead just bow down to lick the boot of the politician, who in turn bows down to lick the boot of the CEO, is despicable. The United States has always been fairly fascistic in nature, but it is becoming more and more openly fascist.
deathtokoalas
fascism is notoriously difficult to define, but i think something that comes pretty clear from it's definition as a society that works like a corporation is that the body politic has to uphold it on some level. that is, because fascism is a total ordering of the state, a truly fascist society has to actually reflect fascist social values rather than merely be the enforcement of those values from the top down. none of the actual fascist states (and america was not organized as anything approaching fascism before the 1930s) were able to reach this point through gramscian conditioning. by unfolding it slowly over several generations, america has really reached the breaking point and tipped over to the other side.
Adolf
I'd have to agree, completely. To be legitimately fascist any given state has to uphold fascistic values. With the U.S you can clearly see corporate ownership of the media, the state meddling in religious affairs (perhaps not as much as the state would in say, Nazi Germany, but that's because the U.S has learnt to hide it's more fascistic elements under a bipartisan dichotomy meant to distract the public and consumerism), a near-militarized police force, an extremely ingrained nationalist mentality within the populace, we have to stand up and say the pledge in high schools, c'mon (this is another example of how the U.S's particular strand of fascism is more mental than overt; rather than having your head beat in whilst you are hauled off to jail for defacing "American values", you have an extremely propagandized society that will defend, tooth and nail, there corporate overlords), an institutionally racist police force (whether racism is or is not a facet of fascism in it's non Nazi forms is debatable, but that's a very serious point worth bringing up), propagandized school systems based off a model of schooling SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make WORKING CLASS INDIVIDUALS NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY, so on and so forth.
As for the U.S not approaching fascism until the 1930's. I also agree with that. My "it has always been fascistic in nature" comment was painting with a broad brush.
West Kagle
IDK........I think I'll take Cultural Fascism over the Cultural Marxism we've been being force feed the last 20 years.
deathtokoalas
the perverted vulgar marxism of converted troskyite neo-conservatism that you're referring to is fascism. it was vulgar marxism in germany, and it was vulgar marxism underlying the new deal.
vulgar marxism, as i'm using the term, means "capital using marxist insights into class analysis to further it's own aims". i'm roughly pulling it out of sutton, as it's where i first saw the idea. it's been demonstrated that the bolsheviks were also essentially vulgar marxists. further, various socialists of the period predicted the phenomenon.
the idea of fascism is actually older than this - hobbes describes it pretty much perfectly in leviathan, and he may have been drawing on italian renaissance sources that i'm not aware of. it's not a twentieth century idea, although the technology and economic organization required to actually construct such a system is a product of the industrial era, much as marxism, itself, is.
as an intellectual thing, socialism is largely the exact opposite of fascism. but, in practice, both "fascist" and "socialist" states (with few exceptions) have followed this kind of hegelian path of perverted marxism in seeking absolute state dominance. trying to separate them into distinct strains of thought is likely to produce more confusion than trying to properly understand them as two expressions of the same set of ideas.
but in terms of these colloquial discussions? we're talking about the same thing.
Daniel
you should try decaf, and probably lay off the halucinagens.
deathtokoalas
i only just woke up. i haven't even finished my first cup yet.
"cultural marxism" is a weird term that misunderstands the situation. it comes out of some kind of john birch society penned narrative of the world being secretly run by communists, which is probably the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there. it's pretty obvious that jfk wasn't shot by a lone nut, even if we're not entirely sure who actually did it. aliens? more likely than not, really. but, the idea that the world is secretly run by communists is just patently ridiculous, as we watch these superpowers butcher millions of people in competition for control over natural resources. it's not cognitive dissonance, it's pure fantasy.
you're not dealing with actual egalitarians, you're dealing with smart capitalists that realize that marx was a smart guy himself and that he made a lot of valid observations that could be used against the working class. engels himself was arguably the first person that realized this. it's led them to engaging in a conscious class war from the top. there's been plenty written about this.
"vulgar marxism" gets the idea across better.
.....but, again, we're talking about the same thing.
West Kagle
Not really. Simply put, I'm referring to the Cultural Marxism that is prevalent in every corner of our society in this country at the present. It's just an out growth of the dialogue killing political correctness that has held this country hostage for most of my adult life. ........unless that's what you are calling Cultural Fascism. Then we're on the same page and just differ in what we're calling it (as you refer to at the end of your comment).
deathtokoalas
it's a small part of it. i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory". there's plenty of like-minded criticism on the left, but it's fighting against something that's becoming rather engrained and borderline systemic. in the sense that it's an idea that is intellectually rooted on the left, but in practice used to uphold a right-wing agenda, it's a type of "vulgar socialism".
the way i've interacted with the term "cultural marxism" (and that i'd prefer be called "vulgar marxism") is a lot bigger than this, though. you're talking of a limited, specific aspect of it.
forzaazzurri101
You look like a fucking pelican, bitch.
deathtokoalas
careful, i might bite your head off.
Adolf
Define political correctness? There's a difference between being socially conscious and supporting liberation movements and being an upright reactionary liberal perpetuating systematic violence with "politically correct" dialogue (that, in a stroke of sadistically hilarious irony actually worsens the conditions of the people they have a savior-complex over) and typical bullshittery. (Note, I'm using the contemporary American definition of liberal, obviously, not talking about an economic liberal.)
deathtokoalas
what i said was this:
i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory".
it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper.
the way activists seem to want to construct organizing is to immediately introduce a racial and gender hierarchy (class is mostly invisible in these situations, except in some extreme cases, like the homeless guy that wants to take part in the assembly) and then actively police it. so you begin by assuming the thing you claim to not want to exist exists, and then go about trying to compensate for it. the problem that creates is that, in context, the assumption that it exists is what actually creates it. once it's created, it does exist, and people start falling in line to it. i mean, you're dealing with a bunch of egalitarian anarchists that explicitly define themselves in opposition to these sorts of things. that hierarchy wouldn't exist if the organizers didn't create it - but they do create it, and then it does end up existing.
all of a sudden, the black woman is defined by her race and gender. she is identifiable that way. she speaks uniquely for other people of her race and gender. she represents her race and gender in the assembly. she needs white men to speak to her more carefully, or even to speak on her behalf, because the system of white oppression makes her unable to speak for herself. it is her identity, and she cannot escape it.
the muslim is defined by his religion. the indigenous activist is defined by her ethnicity. the transgendered person is defined by their gender identification. all represent and speak for their groups analogously.
people become segmented into racial and gender types, expected to express the characteristics of their groups (i.e., hold up to stereotypes), expected to organize with their own because they "share experiences" (self-segregation) and expected to display the weaknesses that the hierarchy places upon them.
that is, it is the enforcement of white hetero-patriarchy on a movement that has come together to combat and abolish it.
of course, when you point that out, you're accused of being blind to privilege. the more cogent and rational your points are, the more blind you are.
the error is of course in constructing a hierarchy of systemic oppression out of a bunch of 20 year-olds that have known each other for a matter of hours and decided to meet in a park to talk about things. that structure doesn't naturally exist, it has to be created and enforced. dude that calls a ga isn't holding a salary or a gun over anybody's head. but, pointing that out is, again, merely denying that it exists.
after you've been through these kafkaesque debates enough, you start to realize you're really dealing with a belief system and you'd might as well be talking to yourself.
it's a problem. a big problem. and it needs some serious academic discourse, because that's where these ideas are ultimately coming from.
Tico o
Death-to-Koalas ? Anything else you want killed ?
deathtokoalas
it'd be nice to get rid of bon jovi once and for all.
John A
are you on acid?
deathtokoalas
it's been a very long time since i've done hallucinogens. it's the kind of thing you mostly grow out of - or become a vegetable on, i suppose.
i'm just going to state the obvious: if you want to respect people that were fighting for freedom (and ultimately lost), you should be spitting in the face of these soldiers (fighting for the interests of the upper classes) and standing on the side of the union activists they slaughtered.
it's true throughout history. workers and soldiers are never on the same side. they can't be.
the soldiers aren't there to protect your freedom, they're there to make sure you never win it.
Timothy
Sport and war have always been connected in some sense. The stadium is the new coliseum. Team sports particularly are ideal screening stations for soldiers. Every cog has a role within the unit, and they drill extensively and create an environment conducive to that soldierly mentality that does as it is commanded without hesitation and eagerly pursues the "honors" and benefits attached to obedience.
deathtokoalas
i think that sports (or games) have historically been more of an alternative to conflict. one could argue that this is the basis of the british parliamentary system.
Timothy
I certainly agree that they may have often been an alternative, or that at least it could be a medium that those same aggressive, competitive energies could be channeled through without bloodshed, but the parallels of say, American football to war are difficult to ignore. They appeal to martial values (regimentation, physical toughness and courage, dogged determination in the face of superior opposition, sacrifice of the self for the benefit of the group, etc. etc.)
I'm not suggesting that team sports are causally linked to war making, but the the correlation of values and psychology is readily observable.
deathtokoalas
on some level. i remember watching a niners game in the fall of '01 with my dad and having D-FENCE, D-FENCE take on some disturbingly jingoist connotations.
but, might the parallels possibly be used to the advantage of peoples seeking peaceful conflict resolution?
i mean, even the basic historical example of the reds and the blues back in the days of the roman empire is able to demonstrate the possibilities of using sports to diffuse tensions. once in a while, they ended up rioting. but, overall, it kept a level of peace. this is often presented as a distraction tactic, and it's no doubt true that it was, but it's not clear to me that civil war over icons or some other triviality is a better outcome than letting the bastards work it out over kick ball.
ZedNova
We're not fascists, we're warmongers.
This is just typical a sporting event, the stadium is full of rednecks so it's not surprising that they're disturbingly "Patriotic".
deathtokoalas
dammit. you used to be warmongers, now you're fascists...
Adolf
"it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper."
I agree completely. It seems that in most political conversations I have people get on my case and call me a "social justice warrior," or "over-sensitive freak preaching political correctness," in the U.S being "politically correct" is apparently a bad thing, which is why I tried to distance myself from it in that statement; it seems, like you said, phrases such as "social justice warrior," or "political correctness," are just one size fits all phrases used to throw individuals into convenient little boxes and stifle any and all debate about serious systematic problems; "socially constructed hierarchies and their systematic violence getting on your nerves? you must be a social justice warrior! go back to Tumblr, ya' stupid hipster!"
deathtokoalas
well, no. what happens - often - is that somebody of colour pulls "privilege" as a trump card to reverse a debate they're losing when they're otherwise obviously wrong, and everybody in attendance realizes it. i've seen it used to silence homeless whites, on a class basis - i've seen homeless whites told by upper class asians that could be hanging out on a golf course to be quiet because they're taking up too much time with their white privilege. it sounds absurd, but racism isn't white; when you give people that kind of power, you shouldn't be surprised when they abuse it.
there's a kernel of ideas in there that have limited applicability in isolated areas, but, like any other tool of power based on characteristics, it gets badly abused in practice.
humans are going to make errors, and we're going to need to learn from them as we do.
what bothers me about the organizing approaches coming out of crt is how obviously predictable the abuses of power that have come out of them should have been. this should have never taken off.
Connor O
im assuming you are from England...
deathtokoalas
canada.
Connor O
Basically the same ideals though... We love guns, and we openly display our love for so. If YOU want to get America to give up its aggressive ways then get Russia and China and the terrorist factions out of the picture. We then will have no need to be so blunt and "cold"
deathtokoalas
in actuality, america always was and still remains the aggressor. i think you've got the right idea, though: america will not stop trying to take over the world until it is conquered and dismantled.
Connor O
not necessarily conquered, but either not aggressing or in a state of indefinite truce. I can assure you that the media portrays all Americans as fat, gun toting Republicans that cant point out Africa on a map. BUT, the majority of us actually don't want war, we just are naturally entertained by the prospect. If we are attacked due to the actions of the few foolish in power, then that is their fault, yet to preserve the way of life that I have today I will do what many seem as a warmongering move to protect MY country.
deathtokoalas
i wouldn't deny you the legitimate right to self defense. unfortunately, if you reciprocate, you're justifying the world's right to gang up on you and tear you down.
there's a certain point where you can't just withdraw and say "ok. you're right. i'm sorry. i'll behave.".
Connor O
The U.S does have an ego, but with certain conflicts in the Middle East etc. Canada, Brittan, France and the majority of NATO did the exact same. The only reason I have guns is to defend myself from the 250 lb. black bears that are on my front porch. The only reason the U.S has guns is to defend its self from the "Black Bears" in our society today. We do not want to be aggressive, but it seems that nobody wants to stop after it has started. Because the train of thought is "then what was all that for?" (By the way, in case you were wondering I am of no political party. I am a Christian Conservative in morals)
deathtokoalas
i don't think the facts support the idea that the united states acts anywhere out of self defense. rather, the united states is an aggressive and militaristic nation that seeks to control the rest of the world for it's own interest, and lashes out at anything that questions it's hegemony.
Connor O
I don't think that the U.S has any intentions of conquering the world :)
deathtokoalas
it's pretty hard to look at their foreign policy and conclude otherwise. it's willful ignorance - in front of you, clear as day, but you choose to ignore it.
Connor O
It may not be ignorance as it is insensitivity to foreign opinion. America doesn't like to change, but when it does it will be groundbreaking. Unfortunately, with the Second Cold War starting the only way for us to make our foreign policy less aggravating is to seclude ourselves from the world. Frankly when it comes to foreign policy America is edgy and may seem to be immoral sometimes and lenient other times. America has ALWAYS had a tendency of "Invading to prevent invasion" It is not that we don't care or have no concern for those that the foreign policy applies to, but as most nations do, the American government prioritizes its own countries security over that of foreign powers. this is seen as an obtrusive, insensitive act but it needed/needs to happen so that America can continue. It is a problem that ignorance is almost guaranteed in American foreign policy and nobody has changed it. But it is a bigger problem as to what removing all foreign interaction.
deathtokoalas
preemptive invasion has always happened, now. interesting.
american military action has always been expansionist: imperialist. the slave trade and genocide of natives weren't defensive. they weren't defending themselves when they attacked canada, or mexico, with the intent of annexation. their policies in central and south america have never been defensive, but have always been imperialistic. and so it goes in africa, east asia, the middle east - all of it designed to control resources (including humans) and none of it designed as defense.
the cold war was really never about ideology, it was the extension of an anglo-british conflict that went past the great game and crimea all the way back to the napoleonic era, and even further. years and years ago, british writers referred to the issue as "russophobia", which was defined as the fear that the barbaric (translation: half-mongolian) russians would conquer all of europe and send it back to the asiatic dark ages. but, the cold war itself was a conflict over independence, rather than one over ideology. on one side, you had a lot of countries seeking autonomy and sovereignty, and a russian state willing to aid them - sometimes for nefarious reasons, but nonetheless. on the other side, you had an american state willing to use extreme force to uphold it's empire, even while it's allies were moving away from that and accepting the collapse of their empires.
when the soviet union collapsed, the american elite never saw it as the end of anything. they immediately saw it as an opportunity to attack and destroy it's enemy. and, nobody should have expected otherwise - although yeltsin did, to his great discredit and naive foolishness. a pack of wolves does not see the collapsing caribou as the end of the conflict; rather, this is seen as the beginning of the feast.
but, they did not act quickly enough or with enough violence to complete the mission in the time they had before russia could get back on it's feet. worse, they managed to demonstrate that the barbarians are, in fact, they themselves. america is heading towards isolation whether they like it or not. their outbursts on russia are the desperate attempts of an angry mother to scold a teenage son that is much larger than her.
but, america will not accept parity. they will not be merely another voice in a multipolar world. so, they will continue to be excluded from the things that matter as a result of it - which will just further resort them to the use of force.
Connor O
It sounds like you are saying the Russians are going to win the eventual war and that they are better and just. Am I wrong?
deathtokoalas
that's not what i'm saying at all. what i'm saying is that nobody else wants this war that you claim is inevitable, and wouldn't be if it weren't for america's insistence on global domination.
Connor O
America does not want war or global domination. We do want peace but somehow through events things escalate into war.
deathtokoalas
see, this is clearly the point we disagree on, but i don't think it's a point of opinion. the american strategy is quite clearly to dominate areas it can and create divisions in the areas it can't. it's been the strategy all along. and, i find it hard to believe informed observers can't see it - the orwellian conversion of the department of war to the department of peace is truly mostly wilful ignorance.
the examples are too many to cite, but one of the most obvious ones is this missile shield pointing missiles at moscow. a country truly interested in peace doesn't build offensive weapons directed at the capitals of it's rivals. at best, this system is designed to intimidate; in truth, it's preparation for invasion and dismantlement.
regarding the russians. for a while, it seemed like their certain future was a two way american backed invasion - a nato attack through the ukraine on one side, and a delayed chinese invasion from the other. russian-chinese trade is quite strong. but, it seemed more likely that china would take advantage of a russian collapse than come to it's aid. why trade for oil when you can take it?
the calculation has shifted with the "pacific pivot", which played american cards too quickly. arrogance can be devastating. china has understandably grown distant, and india has rejected plans for it to be a us military base, instead shifting closer to the sco. even australia is uncomfortable with these plans to contain the chinese. and, the us-pushed rearming of japan is a pretty big problem - not just for the chinese, but also for the koreans.
unfortunately, barring an extreme shift in american thinking, this is going to lead to strengthening anti-american alliances. even the germans seem to want out, now. and america is likely to respond the only way it seems to know how to, to ensure it's continued dominance.
the only way out is for america to accept a less dominant position - to reform institutions to be more democratic, to integrate further with the un, etc. but, the elite has been doing the exact opposite, and has shown absolutely no signs of stepping back.
it's come to the point where the russians have enough confidence to step in and stand up for iran. that would have been unthinkable even five years ago. but, they have nobody to blame but their own short-sighted, overly aggressive policies...
this is really not surprising, unfortunately. it is just more glaring evidence that the united states has crossed the line and is now a culturally fascist nation. the time when we could speak of americans as peace-loving citizens trapped under the control of the american government is past us. the culture, the society, the prevailing norms, the system of morals - it's all become utterly fascist in character.
the fascist states of the past all collapsed (or were destroyed) before they got to this point.
i would tell america to take a good look in the mirror, but it's too late. america does not see itself as the monster that it is, it sees itself as a pinnacle of power that constructs the right to do as it pleases from it's immense strength.
Adolf
Agreed. The fact that we hero-worship murderers, rapists and thugs that are too naive to see what they are doing and instead just bow down to lick the boot of the politician, who in turn bows down to lick the boot of the CEO, is despicable. The United States has always been fairly fascistic in nature, but it is becoming more and more openly fascist.
deathtokoalas
fascism is notoriously difficult to define, but i think something that comes pretty clear from it's definition as a society that works like a corporation is that the body politic has to uphold it on some level. that is, because fascism is a total ordering of the state, a truly fascist society has to actually reflect fascist social values rather than merely be the enforcement of those values from the top down. none of the actual fascist states (and america was not organized as anything approaching fascism before the 1930s) were able to reach this point through gramscian conditioning. by unfolding it slowly over several generations, america has really reached the breaking point and tipped over to the other side.
Adolf
I'd have to agree, completely. To be legitimately fascist any given state has to uphold fascistic values. With the U.S you can clearly see corporate ownership of the media, the state meddling in religious affairs (perhaps not as much as the state would in say, Nazi Germany, but that's because the U.S has learnt to hide it's more fascistic elements under a bipartisan dichotomy meant to distract the public and consumerism), a near-militarized police force, an extremely ingrained nationalist mentality within the populace, we have to stand up and say the pledge in high schools, c'mon (this is another example of how the U.S's particular strand of fascism is more mental than overt; rather than having your head beat in whilst you are hauled off to jail for defacing "American values", you have an extremely propagandized society that will defend, tooth and nail, there corporate overlords), an institutionally racist police force (whether racism is or is not a facet of fascism in it's non Nazi forms is debatable, but that's a very serious point worth bringing up), propagandized school systems based off a model of schooling SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to make WORKING CLASS INDIVIDUALS NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY, so on and so forth.
As for the U.S not approaching fascism until the 1930's. I also agree with that. My "it has always been fascistic in nature" comment was painting with a broad brush.
West Kagle
IDK........I think I'll take Cultural Fascism over the Cultural Marxism we've been being force feed the last 20 years.
deathtokoalas
the perverted vulgar marxism of converted troskyite neo-conservatism that you're referring to is fascism. it was vulgar marxism in germany, and it was vulgar marxism underlying the new deal.
vulgar marxism, as i'm using the term, means "capital using marxist insights into class analysis to further it's own aims". i'm roughly pulling it out of sutton, as it's where i first saw the idea. it's been demonstrated that the bolsheviks were also essentially vulgar marxists. further, various socialists of the period predicted the phenomenon.
the idea of fascism is actually older than this - hobbes describes it pretty much perfectly in leviathan, and he may have been drawing on italian renaissance sources that i'm not aware of. it's not a twentieth century idea, although the technology and economic organization required to actually construct such a system is a product of the industrial era, much as marxism, itself, is.
as an intellectual thing, socialism is largely the exact opposite of fascism. but, in practice, both "fascist" and "socialist" states (with few exceptions) have followed this kind of hegelian path of perverted marxism in seeking absolute state dominance. trying to separate them into distinct strains of thought is likely to produce more confusion than trying to properly understand them as two expressions of the same set of ideas.
but in terms of these colloquial discussions? we're talking about the same thing.
Daniel
you should try decaf, and probably lay off the halucinagens.
deathtokoalas
i only just woke up. i haven't even finished my first cup yet.
"cultural marxism" is a weird term that misunderstands the situation. it comes out of some kind of john birch society penned narrative of the world being secretly run by communists, which is probably the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there. it's pretty obvious that jfk wasn't shot by a lone nut, even if we're not entirely sure who actually did it. aliens? more likely than not, really. but, the idea that the world is secretly run by communists is just patently ridiculous, as we watch these superpowers butcher millions of people in competition for control over natural resources. it's not cognitive dissonance, it's pure fantasy.
you're not dealing with actual egalitarians, you're dealing with smart capitalists that realize that marx was a smart guy himself and that he made a lot of valid observations that could be used against the working class. engels himself was arguably the first person that realized this. it's led them to engaging in a conscious class war from the top. there's been plenty written about this.
"vulgar marxism" gets the idea across better.
.....but, again, we're talking about the same thing.
West Kagle
Not really. Simply put, I'm referring to the Cultural Marxism that is prevalent in every corner of our society in this country at the present. It's just an out growth of the dialogue killing political correctness that has held this country hostage for most of my adult life. ........unless that's what you are calling Cultural Fascism. Then we're on the same page and just differ in what we're calling it (as you refer to at the end of your comment).
deathtokoalas
it's a small part of it. i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory". there's plenty of like-minded criticism on the left, but it's fighting against something that's becoming rather engrained and borderline systemic. in the sense that it's an idea that is intellectually rooted on the left, but in practice used to uphold a right-wing agenda, it's a type of "vulgar socialism".
the way i've interacted with the term "cultural marxism" (and that i'd prefer be called "vulgar marxism") is a lot bigger than this, though. you're talking of a limited, specific aspect of it.
forzaazzurri101
You look like a fucking pelican, bitch.
deathtokoalas
careful, i might bite your head off.
Adolf
Define political correctness? There's a difference between being socially conscious and supporting liberation movements and being an upright reactionary liberal perpetuating systematic violence with "politically correct" dialogue (that, in a stroke of sadistically hilarious irony actually worsens the conditions of the people they have a savior-complex over) and typical bullshittery. (Note, I'm using the contemporary American definition of liberal, obviously, not talking about an economic liberal.)
deathtokoalas
what i said was this:
i've spent some time in activist circles, and i'm willing to concede that there's some valid points brought up by right-wing criticisms of what you're calling "political correctness", although i'm not sure if you're aware of the actual extent this runs to nowadays on the ground in terms of a set of ideas that can be roughly grouped together under the term "critical race theory".
it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper.
the way activists seem to want to construct organizing is to immediately introduce a racial and gender hierarchy (class is mostly invisible in these situations, except in some extreme cases, like the homeless guy that wants to take part in the assembly) and then actively police it. so you begin by assuming the thing you claim to not want to exist exists, and then go about trying to compensate for it. the problem that creates is that, in context, the assumption that it exists is what actually creates it. once it's created, it does exist, and people start falling in line to it. i mean, you're dealing with a bunch of egalitarian anarchists that explicitly define themselves in opposition to these sorts of things. that hierarchy wouldn't exist if the organizers didn't create it - but they do create it, and then it does end up existing.
all of a sudden, the black woman is defined by her race and gender. she is identifiable that way. she speaks uniquely for other people of her race and gender. she represents her race and gender in the assembly. she needs white men to speak to her more carefully, or even to speak on her behalf, because the system of white oppression makes her unable to speak for herself. it is her identity, and she cannot escape it.
the muslim is defined by his religion. the indigenous activist is defined by her ethnicity. the transgendered person is defined by their gender identification. all represent and speak for their groups analogously.
people become segmented into racial and gender types, expected to express the characteristics of their groups (i.e., hold up to stereotypes), expected to organize with their own because they "share experiences" (self-segregation) and expected to display the weaknesses that the hierarchy places upon them.
that is, it is the enforcement of white hetero-patriarchy on a movement that has come together to combat and abolish it.
of course, when you point that out, you're accused of being blind to privilege. the more cogent and rational your points are, the more blind you are.
the error is of course in constructing a hierarchy of systemic oppression out of a bunch of 20 year-olds that have known each other for a matter of hours and decided to meet in a park to talk about things. that structure doesn't naturally exist, it has to be created and enforced. dude that calls a ga isn't holding a salary or a gun over anybody's head. but, pointing that out is, again, merely denying that it exists.
after you've been through these kafkaesque debates enough, you start to realize you're really dealing with a belief system and you'd might as well be talking to yourself.
it's a problem. a big problem. and it needs some serious academic discourse, because that's where these ideas are ultimately coming from.
Tico o
Death-to-Koalas ? Anything else you want killed ?
deathtokoalas
it'd be nice to get rid of bon jovi once and for all.
John A
are you on acid?
deathtokoalas
it's been a very long time since i've done hallucinogens. it's the kind of thing you mostly grow out of - or become a vegetable on, i suppose.
i'm just going to state the obvious: if you want to respect people that were fighting for freedom (and ultimately lost), you should be spitting in the face of these soldiers (fighting for the interests of the upper classes) and standing on the side of the union activists they slaughtered.
it's true throughout history. workers and soldiers are never on the same side. they can't be.
the soldiers aren't there to protect your freedom, they're there to make sure you never win it.
Timothy
Sport and war have always been connected in some sense. The stadium is the new coliseum. Team sports particularly are ideal screening stations for soldiers. Every cog has a role within the unit, and they drill extensively and create an environment conducive to that soldierly mentality that does as it is commanded without hesitation and eagerly pursues the "honors" and benefits attached to obedience.
deathtokoalas
i think that sports (or games) have historically been more of an alternative to conflict. one could argue that this is the basis of the british parliamentary system.
Timothy
I certainly agree that they may have often been an alternative, or that at least it could be a medium that those same aggressive, competitive energies could be channeled through without bloodshed, but the parallels of say, American football to war are difficult to ignore. They appeal to martial values (regimentation, physical toughness and courage, dogged determination in the face of superior opposition, sacrifice of the self for the benefit of the group, etc. etc.)
I'm not suggesting that team sports are causally linked to war making, but the the correlation of values and psychology is readily observable.
deathtokoalas
on some level. i remember watching a niners game in the fall of '01 with my dad and having D-FENCE, D-FENCE take on some disturbingly jingoist connotations.
but, might the parallels possibly be used to the advantage of peoples seeking peaceful conflict resolution?
i mean, even the basic historical example of the reds and the blues back in the days of the roman empire is able to demonstrate the possibilities of using sports to diffuse tensions. once in a while, they ended up rioting. but, overall, it kept a level of peace. this is often presented as a distraction tactic, and it's no doubt true that it was, but it's not clear to me that civil war over icons or some other triviality is a better outcome than letting the bastards work it out over kick ball.
ZedNova
We're not fascists, we're warmongers.
This is just typical a sporting event, the stadium is full of rednecks so it's not surprising that they're disturbingly "Patriotic".
deathtokoalas
dammit. you used to be warmongers, now you're fascists...
Adolf
"it's often used to stifle debate. it's a trump card. but, that's just the obvious part. i'd argue the problem runs much deeper."
I agree completely. It seems that in most political conversations I have people get on my case and call me a "social justice warrior," or "over-sensitive freak preaching political correctness," in the U.S being "politically correct" is apparently a bad thing, which is why I tried to distance myself from it in that statement; it seems, like you said, phrases such as "social justice warrior," or "political correctness," are just one size fits all phrases used to throw individuals into convenient little boxes and stifle any and all debate about serious systematic problems; "socially constructed hierarchies and their systematic violence getting on your nerves? you must be a social justice warrior! go back to Tumblr, ya' stupid hipster!"
deathtokoalas
well, no. what happens - often - is that somebody of colour pulls "privilege" as a trump card to reverse a debate they're losing when they're otherwise obviously wrong, and everybody in attendance realizes it. i've seen it used to silence homeless whites, on a class basis - i've seen homeless whites told by upper class asians that could be hanging out on a golf course to be quiet because they're taking up too much time with their white privilege. it sounds absurd, but racism isn't white; when you give people that kind of power, you shouldn't be surprised when they abuse it.
there's a kernel of ideas in there that have limited applicability in isolated areas, but, like any other tool of power based on characteristics, it gets badly abused in practice.
humans are going to make errors, and we're going to need to learn from them as we do.
what bothers me about the organizing approaches coming out of crt is how obviously predictable the abuses of power that have come out of them should have been. this should have never taken off.
Connor O
im assuming you are from England...
deathtokoalas
canada.
Connor O
Basically the same ideals though... We love guns, and we openly display our love for so. If YOU want to get America to give up its aggressive ways then get Russia and China and the terrorist factions out of the picture. We then will have no need to be so blunt and "cold"
deathtokoalas
in actuality, america always was and still remains the aggressor. i think you've got the right idea, though: america will not stop trying to take over the world until it is conquered and dismantled.
Connor O
not necessarily conquered, but either not aggressing or in a state of indefinite truce. I can assure you that the media portrays all Americans as fat, gun toting Republicans that cant point out Africa on a map. BUT, the majority of us actually don't want war, we just are naturally entertained by the prospect. If we are attacked due to the actions of the few foolish in power, then that is their fault, yet to preserve the way of life that I have today I will do what many seem as a warmongering move to protect MY country.
deathtokoalas
i wouldn't deny you the legitimate right to self defense. unfortunately, if you reciprocate, you're justifying the world's right to gang up on you and tear you down.
there's a certain point where you can't just withdraw and say "ok. you're right. i'm sorry. i'll behave.".
Connor O
The U.S does have an ego, but with certain conflicts in the Middle East etc. Canada, Brittan, France and the majority of NATO did the exact same. The only reason I have guns is to defend myself from the 250 lb. black bears that are on my front porch. The only reason the U.S has guns is to defend its self from the "Black Bears" in our society today. We do not want to be aggressive, but it seems that nobody wants to stop after it has started. Because the train of thought is "then what was all that for?" (By the way, in case you were wondering I am of no political party. I am a Christian Conservative in morals)
deathtokoalas
i don't think the facts support the idea that the united states acts anywhere out of self defense. rather, the united states is an aggressive and militaristic nation that seeks to control the rest of the world for it's own interest, and lashes out at anything that questions it's hegemony.
Connor O
I don't think that the U.S has any intentions of conquering the world :)
deathtokoalas
it's pretty hard to look at their foreign policy and conclude otherwise. it's willful ignorance - in front of you, clear as day, but you choose to ignore it.
Connor O
It may not be ignorance as it is insensitivity to foreign opinion. America doesn't like to change, but when it does it will be groundbreaking. Unfortunately, with the Second Cold War starting the only way for us to make our foreign policy less aggravating is to seclude ourselves from the world. Frankly when it comes to foreign policy America is edgy and may seem to be immoral sometimes and lenient other times. America has ALWAYS had a tendency of "Invading to prevent invasion" It is not that we don't care or have no concern for those that the foreign policy applies to, but as most nations do, the American government prioritizes its own countries security over that of foreign powers. this is seen as an obtrusive, insensitive act but it needed/needs to happen so that America can continue. It is a problem that ignorance is almost guaranteed in American foreign policy and nobody has changed it. But it is a bigger problem as to what removing all foreign interaction.
deathtokoalas
preemptive invasion has always happened, now. interesting.
american military action has always been expansionist: imperialist. the slave trade and genocide of natives weren't defensive. they weren't defending themselves when they attacked canada, or mexico, with the intent of annexation. their policies in central and south america have never been defensive, but have always been imperialistic. and so it goes in africa, east asia, the middle east - all of it designed to control resources (including humans) and none of it designed as defense.
the cold war was really never about ideology, it was the extension of an anglo-british conflict that went past the great game and crimea all the way back to the napoleonic era, and even further. years and years ago, british writers referred to the issue as "russophobia", which was defined as the fear that the barbaric (translation: half-mongolian) russians would conquer all of europe and send it back to the asiatic dark ages. but, the cold war itself was a conflict over independence, rather than one over ideology. on one side, you had a lot of countries seeking autonomy and sovereignty, and a russian state willing to aid them - sometimes for nefarious reasons, but nonetheless. on the other side, you had an american state willing to use extreme force to uphold it's empire, even while it's allies were moving away from that and accepting the collapse of their empires.
when the soviet union collapsed, the american elite never saw it as the end of anything. they immediately saw it as an opportunity to attack and destroy it's enemy. and, nobody should have expected otherwise - although yeltsin did, to his great discredit and naive foolishness. a pack of wolves does not see the collapsing caribou as the end of the conflict; rather, this is seen as the beginning of the feast.
but, they did not act quickly enough or with enough violence to complete the mission in the time they had before russia could get back on it's feet. worse, they managed to demonstrate that the barbarians are, in fact, they themselves. america is heading towards isolation whether they like it or not. their outbursts on russia are the desperate attempts of an angry mother to scold a teenage son that is much larger than her.
but, america will not accept parity. they will not be merely another voice in a multipolar world. so, they will continue to be excluded from the things that matter as a result of it - which will just further resort them to the use of force.
Connor O
It sounds like you are saying the Russians are going to win the eventual war and that they are better and just. Am I wrong?
deathtokoalas
that's not what i'm saying at all. what i'm saying is that nobody else wants this war that you claim is inevitable, and wouldn't be if it weren't for america's insistence on global domination.
Connor O
America does not want war or global domination. We do want peace but somehow through events things escalate into war.
deathtokoalas
see, this is clearly the point we disagree on, but i don't think it's a point of opinion. the american strategy is quite clearly to dominate areas it can and create divisions in the areas it can't. it's been the strategy all along. and, i find it hard to believe informed observers can't see it - the orwellian conversion of the department of war to the department of peace is truly mostly wilful ignorance.
the examples are too many to cite, but one of the most obvious ones is this missile shield pointing missiles at moscow. a country truly interested in peace doesn't build offensive weapons directed at the capitals of it's rivals. at best, this system is designed to intimidate; in truth, it's preparation for invasion and dismantlement.
regarding the russians. for a while, it seemed like their certain future was a two way american backed invasion - a nato attack through the ukraine on one side, and a delayed chinese invasion from the other. russian-chinese trade is quite strong. but, it seemed more likely that china would take advantage of a russian collapse than come to it's aid. why trade for oil when you can take it?
the calculation has shifted with the "pacific pivot", which played american cards too quickly. arrogance can be devastating. china has understandably grown distant, and india has rejected plans for it to be a us military base, instead shifting closer to the sco. even australia is uncomfortable with these plans to contain the chinese. and, the us-pushed rearming of japan is a pretty big problem - not just for the chinese, but also for the koreans.
unfortunately, barring an extreme shift in american thinking, this is going to lead to strengthening anti-american alliances. even the germans seem to want out, now. and america is likely to respond the only way it seems to know how to, to ensure it's continued dominance.
the only way out is for america to accept a less dominant position - to reform institutions to be more democratic, to integrate further with the un, etc. but, the elite has been doing the exact opposite, and has shown absolutely no signs of stepping back.
it's come to the point where the russians have enough confidence to step in and stand up for iran. that would have been unthinkable even five years ago. but, they have nobody to blame but their own short-sighted, overly aggressive policies...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)