Sunday, October 25, 2015

sourcescience
This all comes about because feminism has insisted for decades that gender is a performance rather than something that dwells in the brain. She has no choice but to say this otherwise she would have to admit that there is such a thing as the female brain.

Hoisted on her own petard.



Jane S
+sourcescience That's a really interesting, valid point I hadn't considered. Gender expression - the "we" that we display to the world to express ourselves - isn't the same as gender identity. Greer is confusing the two.

Mancheeze
+sourcescience No. That's not what feminist analysis says.

Jane S
But I've heard it said, too. One of the points is that there is no difference in brain and so women are capable of what men are - and yet, women are capable anyway - it doesn't matter whether you have a female or male brain in the parts that define gender identity. That doesn't interfere with intelligence. I know a girl who is smarter than most people. Society teaching girls that they shouldn't aim as high as boys is the problem imo. :)

sourcescience
+Mancheeze rubbish. That is the heart of feminism. If you don't even understand that then you know nothing.

Mancheeze
+Jane S That's what gender is, a social prescription that oppresses girls, for being female. You tell girls to wear pink, wear heels, and be submissive. that's what gender is.

Gender identity is also meaningless as it's just a 'feeling' in someone's head that can be anything so defines nothing.

Mancheeze
+sourcescience That's not an argument.

sourcescience
+Mancheeze You're correct it isn't. Since you didn't post one of your own I followed your lead.

sourcescience
+Mancheeze If gender is socially prescribed then are M-F transsexuals still male?

Mancheeze
+sourcescience yes. Why wouldn't they be? Nobody changes sex.

sourcescience
+Mancheeze ah, so you too are a transphobe. How predictable.

Mancheeze
+sourcescience Not an argument. Just a slogan and a slur. Maybe if you transactivists could argue a point you wouldn't have to try silencing academics who have more knowledge in their pinky than you do on the whole.

I suppose I'm asking for some critical thought but there's none to be found.

sourcescience
+Mancheeze I did argue in my original post. Your response was essentially "no it isn't". I'm not a transactivist either, but thanks for labelling me and thus being guilty if the very thing about which you complain.

Just because nobody understands you doesn't mean you're a genius.

Mancheeze
+sourcescience Still can't argue a point.

Men are not women. Fact. No evidence to the contrary.

Tamsin Mc Cormick
+sourcescience  I think that the transsexual experience and evidence undermines some main tenets of feminism . The "hard wired" stuff versus the social construct are certainly nailed. The MTF experience has all of that and some feminists don't like the rug being pulled from under them !!

Mancheeze
+Tamsin Mc Cormick There is no evidence to suggest men who play dress up to get an erection has any biological basis. None.

Alexander Todoroff
+sourcescience You, and almost everyone under the sun, only get half of the argument.

Yes gender is fluid social construct. But a social construct is coercively enforced. Thus, it's not just about choice but about how society enforces gender. Women suffer differently than trans. Trans women that are born into a male association will benefit in a world where male is the preference. It's really not hard to validate some of Greer's position by this.

BuFFoTheArtClown
+Alexander Todoroff What world is this that male is the preference? Not this one. Hasn't been, if ever.

Jane S
The point you're missing is that it isn't a fetish. It's not even transvestism, which some trans girls abhor because it sounds similar and is confused by some people with transgenderism. The argument that it's a fetish has been debunct, especially by the WPATH (World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the largest association of medical professionals who provides care for transgender people). Do you have a fetish for dressing up in every day female clothes, Mancheeze? No? Yeah, that's cos - like trans girls - YOU ARE A GIRL. You don't get sexually excited by it. I have not known a single trans girl who got excited by wearing female clothes. What I have seen, however, is happiness that they can finally wear what they should have worn all along had they not been forced into the wrong puberty and told to fit a role they hated (that of pretending to be a "man"). Trans girls I know despised having to work out how they were supposed to act to fit what people saw them as (i.e. men), cos the role doesn't come naturally to them. One girl spent her whole life forcing herself to walk in an exaggerated way, with a scowl that was ridiculous cos she thought that's how men were supposed to walk, which was a conscious effort EVERY SINGLE DAY OF HER LIFE, before she got the courage to admit she couldn't keep up the act anymore.

Samantha Michelle
+Jane S You don't need to be a woman to wear dresses/feminine clothing. Clothes have no gender.

Jane S
You're missing the point.

sourcescience
+Alexander Todoroff so you contend that there is no such thing as a male or female brain?

sourcescience
+Mancheeze Oh dear. Let's spell it out for you one final time. I made an argument. You disagreed but made no argument of your own. Now you demand that others make an argument.

Do you see it yet?

Jane S
+Alexander Todoroff
"Trans women that are born into a male association will benefit in a world where male is the preference." - But that's wrong. The trans women - women - were only forced into playing along with men until they get the courage to come out. I haven't met a single trans woman who relishes that men have the privilege in life. They want women to have it too, as I do. They want to be accepted as the women they are, to fight alongside women. Yes, I only speak for the ones I've known and met - but that's still an awful lot. I've seen people say trans women are "so angry" ("like men" apparently, as if you can over generalise like that!), but every time I've seen it, it's been when a trans person is sticking up for trans hate or fighting a (sadly) losing battle against women who think they're not women. Anyone would get frustrated at fighting a losing battle when there shouldn't be a battle at all.

Hannah White
+Jane S Why should women be forced to think that MTF are genetically female? Of course it's a losing battle, because that expectation is unrealistic and not based on anything real.

Mad Walrus
+Mancheeze A lot of trans women like to wear pink and high heels.

Samantha Michelle
+Mad Walrus Because they think femininity = womanhood. When it does not.

Mad Walrus
+Samantha Michelle They think? Or feel?...

Jane S
Maybe this will make you rethink, Mancheeze. I don't wish for anything other than you to consider these words with an open heart, to read it all fully and to put aside, while you read it, any wrongdoing or abuse you got or felt from a minority who felt victimised or sad or backed into a corner (we've all felt like that, particularly lesbians or bis, etc - and yes, I have a girlfriend). Honestly, I have met nothing but wonderful trans women who have never, ever said a bad word to me. They are my sisters:

"To date, this is the largest genetic study of transsexualism conducted."

"There is a likely genetic component to transsexualism, and genes involved in sex steroidogenesis are good candidates. We explored the specific hypothesis that male-to-female transsexualism is associated with gene variants responsible for undermasculinization and/or feminization."

"A recent study on female-to-male transsexuals identified a CYP17 single nucleotide polymorphism that was significantly associated with the occurrence of transsexualism (14). These individuals have a higher serum testosterone level than control female subjects, the converse effect of what is suggested in our study of male-to-female transsexualism. The effect we identified was weak; thus it seems highly likely that male-to-female transsexualism is due to multiple genetic factors."

"It is possible that a decrease in testosterone levels in the brain during development might result in incomplete masculinization of the brain in male-to-female transsexuals, resulting in a more feminized brain and a female gender identity."

"In conclusion, our findings indicate a significant association between male-to-female transsexualism and the long polymorphism for the AR repeat. This finding links the androgen receptor and further implicates genes in the steroidogenesis pathway as playing a role in male-to-female transsexualism. We speculate that reduced androgen and androgen signalling might contribute to the female gender identity of male-to-female transsexuals. Further studies including replication in other populations, larger patient collections, and analysis of other polymorphisms, both for the genes studied here and other sex steroidogenesis genes, should be undertaken."

"Increasingly, biomedical research is implicating biological factors. Co-occurrence among twin pairs, father-son pairs, and brother-sister pairs (7,8) raises the question of whether gender dysphoria is heritable. Anatomical studies show that certain brain structures in male-to-female transsexuals are more “female-like” in volume and neuronal density (9,10). Furthermore, the response to the odor of male and female steroids in male-to-female transsexuals was more similar to that of control women than control men (11). Other studies suggest that sex steroids influence gender identity."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402034/

There is a far bigger study underway by the same researchers. Words like "likely", "highly likely" and "significant" mean something if a scientist uses them. :) :) :)

Mancheeze
+Jane S Any study of adults will not show innate mechanisms or structures because brains have neuroplasticity ie. it changes w/ environmental influence.

So no. none of this 'research' is applicable.

Again, you have to do fetal or newborn studies to show this. So far, they've found no differences.

There is no female or male brain. Been debunked years ago.

Jane S
+Mancheeze
Okay, I take that point and see that unless you can have proof that an actual newborn is identified as, say, MtF, you won't believe. Have you considered, though, that the many transgender kids out there (we'll go with your argument and say that they were not born as MtFs) are still, then, female because - for whatever reason is/has caused the brain to switch, the effect is the same. The brain of the person is now female. Therefore, she is a female in all the ways which matter (like, I couldn't care less if a female has three breasts, no breasts, a penis, both genitalia, etc - she's still a woman).

And I know you'll be thinking that there is no such thing as a male or female brain (which hasn't actually been proven or disproven to date) - again, I think you're right, barring the obvious that male brains are larger and heavier. I think you can't get a brain that's completely one or the other (I stand to be corrected though, if science proves it). I do think that connections can be wired differently in certain things, but on the whole, a brain is still a brain. I do, however, think that there are areas that store a person's gender identity - the areas that are coming up again and again in studies on transgender people as matching their gender identity rather than their biological sex. The fact that scientists are able to see that these areas are different for each sex means that these areas are different. And if a trans woman matches other women's brains in these scientifically tested areas, unlike actual men, for all intents and purposes, they have female parts to their brain - and they feel female. And that's what science has proven repeatedly, that these brain areas correlate with a trans person's chosen gender.

So taking your first point again, no matter how a person gets their brain rewired, whether in the womb or not, the brain is still not the same as the sex of their body in the parts that are measurably different.

Some people would argue that gender is not binary anyway, which means all of this is moot. Which I also agree with. People should be allowed to be who they want to be without having to explain themselves (sadly, that doesn't really happen in this day and age).

Samantha Michelle
Female is a sex identifier. There is no such thing as female or male brain. & brain studies were done on people who had FULLY TRANSITIONED already, so ofc the synthetic hormones they are full of had an effect on the brain. Gender as you all are using it is a feminine personality. One doesn't actually ever identify with a woman because none of them even know what a woman is. They just want women bodies.

Mancheeze
+Jane S No. Men who wear dresses and perform stereotypical feminine behaviours are not female.

'I do, however, think that there are areas that store a person's gender identity - the areas that are coming up again and again in studies on transgender people as matching their gender identity rather than their biological sex. '

No evidence for that and again, using adult brains means you can't say what mechanism or how or what actually changed that part or function of the brain.

The fact of the matter is it's simply a psychological condition, not a brain condition.

Gender is binary. There's masculine and feminine. Male trans simply switch how they present, they go right into the opposite box and they also do it in such a way that they reinforce the worst stereotypes about women ie. that women love to be fucked wearing lingerie and that porn and prostitution is good for women when it's not.

We don't allow people to do 'blackface' and get away with it but somehow it's ok to do this to women.

I don't think so.

jessica
+Mancheeze
see, the thing is that some girls choose to wear pink heels and avoid conflicts. i'm more about pink cons myself, but i also do a lot of walking.

i have agency. girls do, too. by taking that away, you're being a misogynistic piece of shit that is reducing the intelligence of girls to pretty things with silly ideas put in their heads.

jessica 
+Alexander Todoroff
see, it's the socially coerced part that is misogynist.

girls make their own choices. i made my own choices. i wasn't brainwashed by a patriarchy trying to enslave me, and neither are your sisters that happen to like fluffy, pink things.

that's their choice. they made it, out of their own free will. and, you're being a piece of shit in denying them agency and telling them they have no thoughts of their own except the ones put in their heads by men.

jessica
+Jane S
well...

transwomen can sometimes be excited by sexy clothes, just like ciswomen can be.

it's less that it's been debunked, and more that it's been split off. we understand that these are two different things, and we don't conflate them anymore.

but, rad fems are stuck in the 60s. they've ignored everything that's happened since, which is massive amounts in this field. don't bother expecting a coherent, modern argument out of them - it's not coming.

Mancheeze
+jessica
It's obviously not coming from you either.

You have no evidence so you bash women who know men are men.

Not surprised.

jessica
+Jane S
jane, there's no male or female brain. i don't have a genetic condition, and find the suggestion that i'm a genetic defect to be insulting.

there's nothing "wrong" with me.

i've simply made a choice to take hormones and live as a female, because i want to. and, that's reason enough.

Mancheeze
+jessica You aren't female nor do you live like one.

You have ZERO in common with women.

jessica
+Mancheeze
i have no evidence of what, exactly? i haven't made any claims.

i don't think there's a contradiction in realizing that transwomen are not ciswomen, and still acknowledging us as women. there can be two different types of women.

black people are not white people. but, they're both people.

jessica
+Mancheeze
i think what's more accurate is that you're not a woman, and don't live like one - and have nothing in common with women.

Mancheeze
+jessica No. I AM a woman.Born female, XX. menstruate, been raped b/c I'm a woman so don't tell me I have a female brain or that men can ever know womanhood. 

jessica
+Mancheeze
see, this is typical of radfems - they think womanhood is defined by being raped. it's just another word for slavery. they're completely unable to see past their own negative experiences, or see any of the positives. frankly, and by definition, there are no positives. to the radfem, all enjoyment in life comes from abolishing the feminine. to them, this is emancipation. they claim they wish to abolish gender, but it's funny how their idealizations always look like a society with uniform masculinity across the board. read between the lines - and, in fact, often on the lines - and what you learn is that what they truly want is for everybody to inhabit a male gender role. to them, this is the essence of freedom - to be men.

they claim to be on the left, but that sounds like ayn rand, to me.

and, it's deeply misogynist.

but, she was raped. so, none of this matters; she was raped, so therefore she is female. i have not been raped (this rather callous presumption is actually true), so therefore i am not.

these people are near the end of their cycle. they're already irrelevant. the boomers are just beginning to be gripped by death. they'll be gone altogether, soon.

Samantha Michelle
+jessica You're not a woman because you are a transwoman. if you're a woman then what are you transitioning from? Also she made no claim of being a radfem. You all just love to call anyone that doesn't buy into the gender cult a radfem/terf.

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
it's not hard to understand. i'll try a mathematical formula for you, maybe you might get it then.

let c be the set of ciswomen.
let t be the set of transwomen.

then W, the set of women, is defined by the union of c and t.

that is, W = c U t.

i do not claim to have been born with a female brain. that is absurd. i acknowledge that gender is non-biological and entirely fluid.

rather, i will argue that i have every right to wake up on thursday morning and decide i'm going to transition, and that you have an obligation to acknowledge it, or face the social consequences of being ostracized - as greer has.

Samantha Michelle
+jessica Lol no one has an obligation to accept your identity. Women and transwomen are seperate. You can do all you'd like with your body, and I will never challenge your right to do so. Everyone around me knows my stance, even my trans friends. I haven't been ostracized yet. Its almost like people can actually be around someone that has a different opinion than they. Who knew?

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
yes, you do - as white people have an obligation to accept people of colour, and straight people have an obligation to accept queer people.

transwomen are a subset of women. ciswomen are a subset of women. together, they make up women. ciswomen are only a part of women. transwomen are only a part of women. they are not the same thing. but, the category of women is incomplete, unless it includes both. do i have to explain it a fourth time, or do you understand it yet?

you're on the wrong side of this debate. and, you have a choice - you can correct your derogatory and discriminatory perceptions, or you can find yourself dealing with lost job opportunities, lost friends and lost family - and sitting around wondering why.

that's how social change happens in democratic societies. we just expunge the anti-social members.

Samantha Michelle
+jessica Trans activists love threatening people. Lol nothing's going to happen to me because of my opinion sweety. I'm not the one actively killing and harming trans people. I treat them as humans like any other person. But simply allowing trans people to transition and mutilate their bodies with surgery just because "I'm this cos I said so" does not seem humane at all to me. Sounds like its allowed simply because its profitable. Threatening violence and suicide because people disagree is proof of mental instability. & I will always question gender so that future feminine men won't have to id as women just because they grew their hair long and prefer wearing feminine clothing.

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
well, good luck explaining that to your boss when they're firing you because you're using the wrong pronouns.

Samantha Michelle
+jessica I literally never misgender them. What are you going on about?

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
i hope that casual readers have fun working their way through that contradiction.

Samantha Michelle
+jessica Explain to me how calling someone their birth sex is misgendering? Didn't you just say sex and gender are different things? :3 Tsk tsk.

Mancheeze
+Samantha Michelle Good catch.
Gender is a hierarchy, a social role that puts women at the bottom.

Feminists hate gender and want it thrown in the trash. Girls shouldn't have to buy pink toys. Ya know?

jessica
+Mancheeze
no. misogynists and misandrists hate gender and want it thrown in the trash. feminists celebrate gender, promote the agency of women to make independent choices and reject authoritarians that want to tell other people what to do.

Samantha Michelle
+Mancheeze Exactly! We are just trying to abolish gender. We do not want harm to come to trans people.

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
will you then abolish all the fashion decisions you don't like, all the religions you don't like and all the political perspectives you don't like?

feminism is about gender equality. it is not about the abolition of gender. 

Jane S
It's misgendering and you can get fired for it if you repeatedly do it, because you should respect the gender the person has chosen to be regardless of your inner prejudice. And +jessica, as I've said elsewhere here, I also respect gender fluidity and non-binary. A person is free to do what they want as long as it's not harming others (which is isn't). Sex and gender are more than XX and XY. You obviously had very strong reasons to do it, so who am I to question you?

However, while yours might have been a choice, please consider that there are girls (and boys) who didn't get that choice. Reading your words, part of me wonders if actually there's more than one set of "trans women" (I'd rather just call you women, but for the purposes of this discussion...), those who chose to transition for whatever reason (i.e. gender fluidity), and those who didn't get a choice and who reject, completely, the idea that they "chose" to do it. They rejoice in the studies which say they were born that way (and they are peer-reviewed studies, not pseudoscience as one commenter on the other thread said). One girl I know, who I care very deeply for, has often cried because she had no choice that she's in this position, now treated like dirt because she is a girl. She couldn't live lying to herself anymore. She had been fighting against it her whole life but it just wasn't going away. As she says, she wasn't brave - she did what she had to. She had no choice, because she got to a point where she couldn't face the idea of living anymore if she didn't transition. She hated being seen as a man, treated like a man, called a man's name, and had to pretend to fit in with men.

And +Mancheese, as much as we have very differing opinions on the trans issue... I'm sorry to hear you were raped. It always sickns me that there are people who do that (to women, men and children). It's obvious there's a lot of anger there, and I can understand why. No one should have to go through that. It can ruin lives and change a person. I have a close family member who had that happen to her by a stranger in an alley. hugs Don't let it keep angering you though, or you will never know peace. I see that with my family member. It's ruined her life, and she's not able to get past it. :( I hope that came out okay. I'm not the best at wording things. I mean well though, and I just wanted to offer some support.

jessica
+Jane S
i don't know how you can argue with a straight face that opening your mouth and swallowing hormones isn't a choice.

there's a lot of things that go into how our personalities develop, and most of it is subconscious. but, there is no biological basis for personality - that is a consequence of experience. and we all make the choice to transition or not, no matter how compelling it is.

there's not a debate around this. the person you're describing required counselling first and foremost in making a decision about what kind of life they wanted to live. they weren't born with an innate condition (transsexuality cannot be explained by creationism).

i don't doubt that you honestly think there are peer-reviewed studies that support your argument. it's a wide spread (mis)perception, and it makes sense that it is in a calvinist society. it's predestination.

in fact, there are not.

you can dispute me by finding these studies and posting links. i have to warn you that i may debunk what you post, though.

Mancheeze
+Jane S I don't have to respect a man that doesn't respect me by doing 'womanface' and then forcing into my private spaces.

jessica
+Mancheeze
there's no more use in arguing with these people than there is in arguing with racists that continue to stress for segregation. they have no capacity to absorb new information, adjust to changing realities or grow with society. they're completely absorbed in a blinding ideology that they will never, ever break free from. they must simply be left behind.

if you look it up in a history book, you'll see that this is exactly the same argument that the klan used against integration.

Samantha Michelle
+Jane S They have the right to be called the proper pronouns and I do so! But just because you believe you're a woman doesn't mean you're entitled to woman spaces. & everyone doesn't have to cater to your delusion. You have a right to choose your gender, and people have the right to reject it. Gender is a social construct. Sexuality and sex are not.

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
again: this idea of "women spaces" is not valid. i refuse to have this discussion. i reject the premise.

there are no white spaces. there are no catholic spaces. and there are no female spaces.

putting up a fence is an invitation for people to tear it down. 

Mancheeze
+Samantha Michelle
I only call certain people by the pronouns they desire. The rest I don't. Until transactivists stop forcing their way into women's and girls minds and bodies, I'll call them HIM and SIR. 

Samantha Michelle
+Mancheeze & I don't blame you. Most of them are disgustingly misogynistic. 

Mancheeze
+Samantha Michelle
Hell yeah Sam. One of them said he wanted to slit Greer's throat on Twitter. ANother man said if Hitler was trans he should be housed in a women's prison cuz feelz. 

Samantha Michelle
+Mancheeze There's a bunch of male prisoners coming out as trans so they're moved to female prisons. It actually worked for one of them! Its just so sad how much the US or the world doesn't care about women. 

jessica
ridiculous generalizations, often based on anecdotes. absurd scare mongering. the tendency to take obscure scenarios and speak of them as though they're common occurrences. a complete disinterest in any kind of civil rights. baseless name calling.

this stuff isn't worth countering.

regardless, i know i can't get through; that it's a waste of time. but i just really wish you would align yourselves properly with authoritarian conservative reactionaries and stop parading yourselves as leftists. that's what really bugs me.

i mean, i'm used to these kinds of arguments from the right, and it's easy enough to just throw them away as nonsense. but, it's just frustrating to have to deal with this over and over again on the left, because it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with actually getting to a hierarchical-free society - it's just placing walls between people, and cementing hierarchical divisions rooted in trivialities.

Samantha Michelle
+jessica Let me ask you something. What are you doing right now in your life that you can't do if you id as a male/man? This is a serious question. No hatred or ill will towards you.

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
it's a strange premise to suggest that there are things i could do as a female that i couldn't do as male.

what do you do in your job that you couldn't do as an astronaut?

Samantha Michelle
+jessica You're not a female. You're male. What are you doing now that you can't do if your gender aligned with your birth sex. Stop being confrontational.

jessica
+Samantha Michelle
it's a stupid question, based on a flawed premise. there's no answer to it. there are not things that one gender can do that the other can't. but, that has nothing to do with why people transition.

you're taking a position of biological determinism, which is a religious perspective.

people are not born male or female, it's something that develops as they age based on a complicated mixture of agency and experience, and is entirely fluid throughout one's life. we can change genders as many times as we like, and as often as we like. that is the irreversible conclusion of the understanding that gender is not a biological fact, but a social construct - it must be arbitrary, and subject to modification in whichever way we want.

if i were basing my life decisions on the level of some kind of homo economicus, in order to "rationally" maximize utility, i would likely have not made this choice. it hasn't made it easier for me to find employment. it hasn't made it easier for me to build relationships. you cannot understand how humans think with this broken neo-liberal economic model. humans make decisions in more complex ways than this.

Jane S
Hmm. I am going to call every girl here who's denied that trans women are women.... men. Because trans women are women, and if's perfectly acceptable for you to call these women men, then it's perfectly acceptable - and I have every right - for me to do the same with you men too. Who are you to have some supreme, exclusionary attitude and to bandy about generalizations like you can see into the minds of everyone (and, of course, that all trans people are aggressive and bad)? And the ignorance and perpetration of misinformation I've seen here astounds me.

See how it feels when someone ignores who you are? And I won't hear arguments about biology and supremacy. You know my stance on it.

And for this point:

"What are you doing right now in your life that you can't do if you id as a male/man? This is a serious question. No hatred or ill will towards you." - you're missing the point BY FAR. You've answered your own question. There's NOTHING she couldn't do (except get less pay because she's a woman, put up with abuse coz she's a trans woman, and be in a marginalised group she shouldn't have to be in if people were less strict about gender), which shows it goes beyond mere shallow things like hobbies and jobs. Trans women need to transition. It's not about "Oh, being a female looks fun. I think I'll have a go".

If you believe men are misogynistic/sexist/agressive/etc (I won't go into this point), why would trans women (in your eyes "men") want to put themselves in not just a gender that has less privilege, but also to go lower than that in some people's eyes? A class that gets vicimised and abused. Surely that should tell you something about why they have to do it? Trans people aren't exactly thought of well unfortunately in some of the population. I hope that changes asap. The trans women I know freely, HAPPILY gave up male privilege because, as I've ALWAYS seen, they didn't want it, they didn't want any part of being seen as a man or having power over fellow women. They just want to fight for equality alongside other women.

Sigh. But I know we're just going back and forth about this. Makes me so sad.

Mancheeze
+Jane S Men keep their privilege when they wear skirts. Bruce Jenner COUGH!

You men can take off women face, WE WOMEN ARE WOMEN and are rooted in our female bodies and lives.

GO ahead, call us men, if you need to lash out at women like a typical male. We're not buying it.

You can repeat like a mantra over and over 'trans'women' are women' but it doesn't make it so.

Jane S
Mancheeze, you're mixing up Caitlyn's status as a celeb with her being influential because of what you perceive as being male.

And by calling me male too, you're guilty of lashing out in the way you just defined as male (which it isn't, by the way. Women can lash out in frustration and anger and hurt too - that's called being human - I've seen you lash out plenty here). By your supremacist reckoning bio females are females, and since I unfortunately fit your definition, you just made a fetal assumption, as you are wont to do.

Mancheeze
+Samantha Michelle
I love how transactivists think if they call us men, which is supposedly the worst thing you can do to them, that we'll fall apart on the spot.

We're much tougher than that. We're the sex class that gets killed at birth for being female in rural India. We're the sex class that is usually sexually assaulted before we're 15 years old.

We're the sex class that is sex trafficked, are the majority of the world's poor.

It's through this kind of bullshit they pull that you really get the clue that they have no idea what being a woman is, and never will.

Jane S
Except that they stand a higher risk of it by being a trans person. And they live with bigotry and prejudice and exclusion and abuse.

And lol, you really think people haven't tried counselling trans people? See, this is what makes me see that you have absolutely no idea at all about trans people and haven't cared to read up. Of course medicine would look to simple explanations like those first! Trans people had decades of all types of "help" - counselling (which didn't work because you can't counsel someone's gender out of them), electrocution (in the waaay past), lobotomy, injections of the hormones of their "sex" (which ruined the trans people mentally - imagine someone giving you a huge dose of testosterone!). The only proven method is to let these people transition. It is, so far, the only thing that alleviates their gender dysphoria, as THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS STATE.

jessica
+Jane S
jane, you're using language people try to avoid, but i think you're getting to the heart of it. i see two fundamental issues that need to be overcome by the radfems to have them worked back into the feminist mainstream.

1) the first is acceptance, and that much is obvious.

2) but, the second is maybe more fundamental, and that's coming to terms with their own femininity, or lack of it. we all agree that they have the right to reject certain things that are connected to femininity. they have agency, they can do what they want and shouldn't be judged for it. and they will freely acknowledge that sex and gender are different things. but, they then have a hard time in taking that final step and fully disconnecting themselves from the gender they're rejecting. it's maybe easily summed up in the statement: if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then it's a duck. but maybe it's also true that if it refuses to look like a duck and refuses to quack like a duck, then it should conclude that it doesn't want to be a duck, and should stop pretending it's a duck, and certainly refrain from policing who is a duck and who isn't.

if femininity is a social construct, then identifying as female needs to happen on the level of the social construct, rather than the chromosomal level. and, on that recognition an obvious truth appears: the vast majority (not all) of these anti-trans radfem "activists" are not women, because they reject the characteristics in the social construct. they have specific genes, and that's one thing. but, they don't live their lives as women, in the sense of upholding ideas within that social construct.

they way they're doing this - where they acknowledge the separation of sex and gender, and then argue it remains fundamental in determining the identity of trans people - is very much just simply a massive contradiction. but, you've also pulled out why they hold to this: it's precisely because a choice to reject this privilege (and i'm a little skeptical about the depth these theories apply in, but i do realize systemic gender inequality) upends their gender model, which sees femininity as a tool of oppression by the patriarchy. in their mind, choosing to transition is equivalent to signing one's self up for slavery. to acknowledge something emancipatory (even if it's on a level outside of the ideals presented in utilitarianism, or liberal economic theory) in the process is to completely contradict everything they've been arguing for for decades. there's no way out of this for us - it's a direct and entirely rational consequence of their concept of how society functions, and can only be resolved by abolishing the contradictions in their system of thought. as we all know, that rarely happens - and never happens over the internet. as i've pointed out: you'd might as well be arguing with creationists, or climate change deniers. the debate is coming from the same kind of perspective: one that is rooted in an ideology. all anybody is going to get is the same stale assertions, the same debunked claims, the same absurd argumentation that is grasping at straws to hold to a belief system.....

to put it another way: it's understood that a big part of homophobia is dealing with repressed homosexual desires.

i think a big part of what we get from these radfems is repressed gender issues.

but, that's not meant as an insult, it's meant to be expressed as articulating an epiphany that needs to happen. i'm not about to define anybody's oppression, and i can completely understand feeling oppressed by a gender role.

but, perhaps the best way out - for everybody - is for these radfems to discard their oppression by discarding their identification as women, taking the truth of it by the horns and bravely moving forward as men.

Mancheeze
+jessica
gender repression? Is that the new word of the day?

We'll never stop being women. You're a man. Not a woman.

Deal with it dude.

jessica
+Mancheeze
it might be a little hard for ideologues to relate to, but i tend to think for myself. i'm sure it's in print somewhere or other.

 Jane S
+jessica
It's interesting what you say. And yes, I see a lot of people defining what traits and actions are women's and then also delclaring what they think are men's - and yet they display qualities they have previously defined as masculine, which by their reasoning makes them men... yet they reject that cos they "are biological women". And yet, I also see these same people declaring that women and men are the same because they say there isn't such a thing as a male or female brain.

I know you and I differ on the sex of a brain, which is fine and we are both entitled to our opinions (I hope it's okay for me to state mine - I mean no offense AT ALL), but I do strongly think that brains are wired towards one or the other in the parts that control gender. I do believe, though, a whole spectrum exists in that female brains can lean towards masculine traits (I love DIY, building computers, beer, etc). I'm still a woman and I would NOT want to transition into a man (I love being a girl and I love my body), but I don't fall towards the girly end of being a girl. Conversely, I believe men can range from the feminine to the masculine. That, however, still means they have the brain that matches their body - like mine. Where I see the problem is, is when the brain and body don't align and you get people who display uncharacteristically opposite-sex traits but don't feel connected to the body they're in, with feelings that go way deeper than just surface traits and actions. My very close trans friend often talks of the past, of how she felt (often) subconscious feelings of hate towards her old name, towards the role she was in, towards her masculine body. She reacted viserally and negatively and unthinkingly to things we all take for granted - like her name, as I said. It wasn't just that she loved what could be defined as female pasttimes or traits. She made herself physically ill through repression while trying to fight against it (illness gone; CBT and psychologists all say that's normal to happen through repression).

I wish so much she'd been born the way she should have been, but I can only support her journey and make it as painless as possible. Science is increasingly showing that she was born that way, from all manner of tests, and bigger studies are already happening. She finds no shame in that. It's not shameful. In fact, she finds it liberating to hear what she has known inside - that she is a girl, completely naturally. But no, I don't mean you, don't worry - I have no idea of your circumstances and I wouldn't presume to know. You feel how you feel, and I respect that. :)

So anyway, it's an interesting idea about gender repression. I've read studies on the concept of straight guys who are too vocal about gays - and what the science actually shows. I do wonder if another big part will be that some women have been abused/downtrodden by men (we all have experienced white man privilege in action on women) and through this some can form an unhealthy, blinded hatred of what men represent and are, and lump them altogether. Sure, I have huuuge issues with how males have shaped society and we find ourselves living in a patriarchy in this day and age (which I hope we're slowly leaving for more equality). And, because of this hatred, it will be almost impossible to see through it and see that they should reject their biased beliefs that trans women are men and to accept, openly and without prejudice, more women into the fold.

Big hugs, deathtokoalas! (Though I'm telling you off for saying that about koalas! :D)

jessica
+Jane S
yeah, i think that it's a part of the repressive aspect, and it's largely tied into social expectations and even what this strand of feminism teaches.

i think what you're saying about the brain is kind of true (in the sense that certain parts of the brain react to certain socializations), but where you're going wrong is the question of whether it's hard-wired or the result of plasticity. again, you're claiming "studies have shown..", and i don't doubt you believe that - because you've read "studies have shown...." however many times that it's just not challenged anymore. but, i'm going to have to again challenge you to actually find those studies. what you're going to actually find out is the opposite: that our brains are tremendously malleable, and change dramatically relative to experience. it's more of a tabula rasa than not. the conclusion is that the changes in brain chemistry you're referring to are a consequence of gendering, rather than the cause of it.

another way to think of it is that our brain has defined hardware that is determined by genetics, but that the software is mostly developed as a consequence of life experiences. things like sexual orientation and gender identity would largely fall under the software category.

i don't think that makes the phenomenon less real, or that it's a reason to argue the way that radfems argue. but, it's what the science actually says, here - nothing is hardwired, and it's all fluid and subject to change repeatedly over the course of our lifetimes.

the other thing you have to work in is that, in real people, it's going to be all mixed up. this idea of "female response" is a statistical idea - a certain percentage of things would be correlated, and it will be slightly different for everybody. most people are going to fall into these grey areas on a normal curve (30-70%), regardless of how they choose to identify. where you place the boundaries down ends up rather arbitrary, and, because it's all so plastic, is subject to change over the life time of any specific individual. the most masculine guys are going to get a 10-20% female response and you're never going to find anybody at all with a 100% "female" brain chemistry. you're rarely going to find anybody with responses in the 90s, even. so, then, is 75% "female"? 65%? you see what i'm saying.

the traditional approach is that gender is a spectrum. based on personality tests that i've done, i'd guesstimate myself as about 70% female, which is going to be roughly the norm in cisgendered women - however seriously you want to take that idea.

so, does that mean you can "cure" this? in the abstract, probably. but, you'd have to bring in basically nazi tactics. if you were to tie me to a chair and brainwash me, clockwork orange style, you could program anything at all into me. you could program me, or anybody else, to be sexually attracted to anything: suvs, lamp posts or, yes, even the despicable koalas. you can brainwash people into identifying as anything, too - apples, llamas, rocks. the question isn't whether it's possible, it's whether it's ethical. the movement to treating transgendered people with hormones isn't rooted around whether it's possible to convert them into their biological sex role, but whether it's moral to destroy somebody's personality through invasive, forced procedures. it's a question of agency and free will.

Mancheeze
+Jane S
Yes, but for the last time: Women are adult human females. That experience is rich and diverse and feminism is about that, not about men's feels.

Mancheeze
+Samantha Michelle Haha. Yep, and they push porn and prostitution as if that's what women all aspire to. It's sickening.

jessica
+Mancheeze
we eat babies, too.

Mancheeze
+jessica Don't be an idiot. You're a man being an idiot now.

jessica
+Mancheeze
actually, i'm not even truly human - i'm a demon in human form.

Paul L
+Jane S How would people who don't have the option to have the procedure but who want it, ie in countries without a free health service, or people who lived just 60 or 70 years ago ? (ie before the procedure was first carried out )?

Jane S
So all you trans haters insisted science (peer reviewed science, not pseudoscience) was wrong because of a brain's plasticity, so I come along and show how the brain's structure can't actually be changed via plasticity and therefore study's that show trans people's brains match their chosen gender is deemed worthless (lol) because "Women are adult human females. That experience is rich and diverse and feminism is about that, not about men's feels." It's like you're deliberately obtuse. You're so blinded by prejudice, you wont see anything else.

I couldn't even tell you that many trans women (yes, every one I know, and loads more I bet - it's logical) don't actually have or relish those "male memories". They're left not being able to identiy with any of those earlier memories because that self was simply an act. The first time they became a true person - with feelings and able to express themselves honestly and openly - was once they came out and stopped living a lie. One girl I know says it's weird coz she doesn't have a childhood - and she never expected that. She has memories of people reacting to what they thought was a boy, but because she is not one, the memories don't connect. It's a common feeling and a lot are traumatised by the disconnect to the point that they suffer from things I'm not even gonna describe because it's pointless to you. You won't ever hear it. You read anything that suits you - "one complaining cos they weren't sexually degraded" - and THAT sticks. The rest... forget it. To read what actually happens to them, and the fact that they ARE women, is too human for you and it doesn't chime with your bigoted opinion of them being harsh, misogynistic men.

At least I'm happy knowing this "fad" won't go away. In fact, there was just a news article I read yesterday on how - because of all the coverage and awareness - more people than ever are coming forward as having gender dysphoria. As much as it's a horrid condition and I feel for those affected, I'm glad the world is waking up to their plight. :) There are so many understanding people fighting back to haters. We're on the brink of something. We're on the path to acceptance, like with gays and lesbians and anyone who doesn't fit the standard box. It's about time the world moved on from being static and sexist. Inclusiveness is the way forward.

Anyway, I am leaving this video now. deathtokoalas, good luck with everything. You are supported and loved. But I still say koalas shouldn't be confused with a dinosaur lady with outdated beliefs. :D:D:D

Jane S
+Paul L
Before I go, I noticed this. For those suffering very strong gender dysphoria, with no way out, I'm sad to say the options don't look good. 1 in 3 trans people commit suicide here, especially if they don't have support of the financial means to make the necessary changes to rid themselves of their body dysphoria. It's not a "choice" for a lot - it's a "need". They can't stand it there. I feels wrong - as I would think if I had a penis. Unless they had some hope, or hope of money, it doesn't look good. My very close friend is struggling enough with being a trans woman right now, after Greer's comments, and she suffers every day with her body dysphoria.

I wish that weren't the case, anyway, about the suicides. Some people have less dysphoria and can cope better. But some have it very bad and can't stand their genitals, face, etc, and looking into a mirror is a traumatic experience. I can't speak for all trans people; I can only speak for those I know and for the many I've read about or spoken to.

Mancheeze
+Jane S Many times surgery doesn't even help because there's a ton of comorbid psychological disorders.

The medical community is in for a huge wake up call.

jessica
+Mancheeze
it was actually delisted as a psychological condition a few years ago and replaced with "gender dysphoria" - which is a feeling of being socially ostracized for gender nonconformity. that is, the medical community no longer considers transsexualism itself to be a medical condition at all (neither genetic nor psychological), it is now actually viewed entirely as an arbitrary and harmless choice just as homosexuality is, but it recognizes that it may lead to psychological trauma as a consequence of social prejudice, which may require treatment.

i personally agree with the change in the dsm on a purely pathological basis, but, until hormones are available in the open market, we're going to need to rely on doctors for prescriptions, and that's what the medical literature really needs to be written around.
Rudolph Von Galen
Young Justin is not ready to lead. He is no match for Vladimir Putin. That should soon become apparent. I believe he is Canada's last Prime Minister. Canada is finished.

Brian Critchley
the elections over Rudolph, you can stop repeating the tired party line. no one belives it.

jessica amber murray
i like this response, because it jumps directly to what i was going to post.

the "no negative campaiging" thing is a nice narrative and all, but it doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. you could maybe argue that the liberals took the high road in their attacks, and people responded to it well.

but, i seem to remember this line - "nobody believes you" - as being often repeated, and rather pivotal.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/25/justin-trudeau_n_8382304.html

Saturday, October 24, 2015

bcaetano
Washington State is not the model to follow. In Washington State, the price of legal recreational Cannabis is over $20 per gram. That price is far too high and does not keep the black market away.

Jessica Murray
this is true, but i want people to think about something. there has to be reasonable expectations set about this.

marijuana was priced at $10/gram most of the time - $12 if there's a lot of hands and $6 if it's your friend selling it to you, or if you're buying in larger quantities - in 1996. it's still priced at $10/gram today, and higher if you're paying too many people and lower if you're paying in bulk, or from a friend. that's absolutely no inflation for at least twenty years; i can't talk about prices before 1996.

there's absolutely nothing else on the market that has prices that stable. and, this is actually a reflection of the black market. i have no idea what the profit margin is, but it must be pretty substantial if there's been zero inflation for decades. but, that's only possible due to a lack of taxes and a general operation outside of any sort of real accounting, or accountability to boards of directors.

they must be just reaping it in if they're selling it for $20/gram in washington. based on my understanding of the market, it would actually have to be profitable through the black market at as low as $5/gram - or even $3/gram. it's the only way to explain how the prices could remain so stable, when production costs must have come up along with everything else. and, the producers have to have been taking hits on inflation in production costs all these years, because prices have not increased.

the government has indicated that it understands that it has to undercut the black market to be successful. but, if you think about the economics, it's almost impossible - there's no traditional salaries involved, no taxes, etc. when you work in all these extra costs that gangs aren't paying, the best we can expect is to match the black market. but, the black market will always be able to undercut the state on this, due to these lower production costs - unless the state takes a loss to drive them out of business, which is naive in the long run.

i have to think that a big part of the reason that people stopped going to speakeasies and started going to bars was simply that they were sick of breaking the law. but, the abolition of prohibition also came with a crack down on bootlegging. they didn't just legalize alcohol. they also cracked down on illegal production.

in the short run, it has to be competitive to work. but, in the long run, the reality is that we're introducing costs and we're introducing market realities that assert the necessity of eventual inflation. there's no way around this: you're going to need to pay a little more, in the long run. but, i think it's better than the alternative...

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trudeau-s-pledge-to-legalize-pot-he-may-want-to-look-south-1.3283698
i don't know how you skip carolyn bennett & stephane dion - and those are just the most obvious ones.

he's got tons of experience on the benches, and i think you should expect him to rely on it rather than dump a bunch of inexperienced people in. the proper relationship is to put the experienced ministers in now and let the younger mps take secondary roles, to learn portfolios under tutelage. you know: earning your way up. appointments on merit, not ethnicity. that's how the liberals have always functioned, because they've always had the benefit of being able to orchestrate an orderly generational transition. the martin purge hurt that a little, but not enough to dismantle it.

there's no deficit of qualified female candidates, either. he's got plenty to work with. he doesn't need an affirmative action program. i mean, i'd question the logic if he did - but he doesn't.

the truth is that trudeau knows he's going to have to rely on his elders quite a bit himself, for the next couple of years. the bennetts, dions, goodales, mccallums and whatnot are going to be key for the next couple of years. and, that shouldn't be a secret to the ottawa citizen.

ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/cabinet-making-whos-on-trudeaus-shortlist

Don Betton
Based on your arguement if the women have the experince and skils they will get selcted without a quota to maybe more than 50% of the Cabinet. However setting a quota is unacceptable. You are now justifying discrimination based on sex....try to think of the situation reversed. A comparable situation would be promoting 50% men if there were 75% women in a workplace......would you accept such an approach in reverse???

Jessica Amber Murray

yes, actually.

--

my comment disappeared fast. lol.

it's the liberal party, lee. it's not the diversity committee at the occupy encampment. the gender thing is legit, and there shouldn't be a serious debate about it. but, they don't appoint you to cabinet for being italian. they tell you to get in line and work your way to the top.
well, i blew the day learning how to edit videos. it should be a faster process, moving forward. it turned out to be fairly intuitive. but, it was also a learning process regarding a few things. the camera jitter was more than i expected; it turns out there's an easy fix ("stabilize"), but i should be more aware of it. also, i recorded today at 320p because i wanted to conserve memory card space on the way to the store to get a bigger card, and i don't think it's quite good enough. exposure in the basement is bad, but it turns out i can fix it in editing. the audio on the device is fine. all in all, i think i can work quite well with this device. today's upload is going to look pretty amateur, but hopefully that will resolve itself in a few days.

i'll post the first vlog here when it's done uploading, but i won't post them here daily. this site is for music updates. if you want to follow the vlog, follow the vlog. that is, on youtube.

so, no testing today. i think i should get some done tomorrow.
yeah, i'm...

i'm not going to dissuade standing up to a bully. but the thing is that it doesn't work. telling kids they're being mean, when they're intentionally being mean, is actually just reinforcing them. it's rewarding negative behaviour with the attention that they're consciously seeking.

schoolyard bullying is all about establishing hierarchies - pecking orders. it's about establishing dominance and submission. i know it's natural for an adult to want to cuddle a child that's being teased, but it's the same basic twinge of empathy you get when you see a wolf pack fighting for dominance, or even a lion killing a zebra. it's very much a normal, cycle of life kind of thing. and, when you intervene like this you're just reinforcing the premise - that this child is an easy target, at the bottom of the hierarchy.

a better idea is to give the kid that's being bullied the tools to defend itself. in extreme cases, that it is legitimately going to require physical force. i used to get picked on when i was a kid because i was a scrawny, passive bookworm. i'd come home with bruises from being pushed around. my parents' reaction to this was to put me in karate - and i'll tell you that a few ninja moves did a lot to get some kids to back off, even if i never had to actually use it. and, in fact they teach you that when you take self-defense - it's never meant to be used, it's just meant to look scary. i'll acknowledge that i was maybe the exception in being smart enough to realize that at nine-ten years old and use it to my advantage. it didn't work in changing my attitudes towards things (i never got over my shyness enough to actually engage in any kind of sparring at the dojo, and i didn't keep up with it past the age of twelve - i really hated it), but sending me to these classes gave me an incredibly useful tool of intimidation when it was necessary. and, it was probably the only thing that ever could have worked because i remained an easy target.

in less extreme circumstances, like depicted here, the key is getting the kids to have the self-assurance to realize that what these kids say doesn't matter, or even to counter with comebacks.

the old cliche that you have to stand up to a bully is the flat truth of it.

nah, that's bullshit - the innocence is a ruse. it's like that episode of the simpsons, with the preacher's daughter, jessica, who gets bart in all kinds of trouble. the ones that pretend to be innocent are actually the truly evil ones. it's a mask. trust me on this.

and, those yoga instructors? nine out of ten know the game they're playing. get them out behind the studio, smoke a joint with them, and they'll tell you it's just all a lot of bullshit and they know it, but it pays the rent and gets them laid, so why not go with it?

but, to the guy that's asking the question: she likes older guys. it's not at all uncommon. there's lots of reasons. experience. money. other, creepier things. once, it's a thrill. over months? continually? she's thinking about moving in, at the time. doesn't matter if he's married. it's instant everything, including instant adulthood, and that's key. no period of struggle - just a red carpet to financial freedom. a house. a car. and, listen: why not? why go through the difficulty of sticking with some 20 year-old that could flunk out of college next week, when you can get a guy with a nest egg? it's entirely rational, which is why it's not uncommon.

what that means is that she's waiting you out. she's thinking you have a path to wealth; if you do, it probably works out. if you don't, she's going to drop you in a second to find that guy in his mid-life crisis that'll treat her like a princess for long enough to get some cash out of him.

you're 22. world's rough. deal with it.

so, the truth is that she's consistently out of key, but she's consistently out of key in exactly the same way every time.

it's easy to say "well, she's doing it on purpose. she's singing in microtones". that's rather unlikely, in pop music of this nature. the truth is likely more along the lines of that she's truly tone deaf, and she's not able to hear the wrong notes (or correct notes) properly. it's actually relatively common in pop singers, but somebody usually gets in the way and fixes it - in the past by yelling at the singer to practice, and nowadays, more often than not, by simply using autotune.

despite that, the dissonance is sort of compelling - or would be if it wasn't so repetitive. but, the repetition is a genre marker. the industry refers to this monotony with the term "hook".

there's only one singer that i'm aware of that's been able to convert being tone deaf into an actual asset, and it's the original singer from alice in chains, layne staley. he could yell pretty well, but he couldn't hit a note if his life depended on it. but, the guitarist in the band really played off of this to create all these harmonies that are just completely outside of western music theory, and the whole thing was wrapped up in a thematic package that really took it to the next level. you can hear the difference in listening to older songs performed by their new singer. the new singer is not tone deaf - he actually hits the right notes. and, the songs lose this kind of intangible (not really - i just explained it) as a consequence of it. you expect the singer to be off by that quarter tone, and are offset when the correct note is produced.

success in pop music is driven by factors that are often very far removed from musical talent, creativity or ability. i'm not suggesting her career is over, because it does not seem to have been dependent on her actual singing ability in the first place. but, it's not the first time that it's been blatantly clear that she's either tone deaf or singing in microtones, and it's really only the former that is at all likely.

a few more releases like this, though, where the most memorable part of the song is how badly it is sung, and people are going to start noticing in larger numbers.

this is extremely heavily focus grouped.

the dancers in the video are a reflection of a statistical cross-section of his audience's demographics: mostly middle aged women.

there's a valid point in here somewhere, but as is generally the case with south park, it's not articulated well - because the writers for the program are just not very smart.

the basic premise in the episode is that social media comments represent reality, and ignoring them represents escaping reality. now, i do a lot of commenting - i think it's an underappreciated medium - but this premise is comically absurd. the vast majority of comments, negative or positive, are written at a level that is below grade school - they are often incoherent, at best, and are largely written in languages that linguistics has yet to actually define.

blocking, deleting or disabling comments is consequently not in any way equivalent to tuning reality out, unless you're willing to entirely conflate reality with unbearable idiocy. it's really more equivalent to standing on your balcony and screaming to the masses, over loudspeakers: i don't fucking care what you think. and, that's relatively healthy in terms of asserting individualism.


(deleted)

but, it's an absurd premise as to why people block others. i use my killfile very liberally. it has nothing to do with my feelings; i just don't have any patience for fucking idiots, and don't think i have any obligation to give them a platform. it is absolutely not my responsibility to hear them out, ponder what they have to say and thoughtfully respond - i have every right to just smite them from my internet altogether, and be on with it.

free speech does not imply an obligation to listen.

so, telling somebody to shut the fuck up doesn't always mean you're hiding from something, or can't deal with something. quite often, what it means is that the person talking is a hopeless, irredeemable dipshit that isn't worth the thirty seconds required to block them.

but, as mentioned, there is a point in there, somewhere, buried underneath piles of absolute nonsense.

Friday, October 23, 2015

see, it's the end part of the video that i think really understands the issue.

if you don't have an enthusiastic consent clause, you don't have an objective standard in court. there's this huge disconnect in reality between how feminists talk about rape and how a court deals with an accusation of rape. the court takes the assumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and a large part of proving somebody is guilty of rape lies in establishing the intent. if one partner thinks there is consent, then there's not an intent to rape - and that is a big part of how the legal system works. feminists broadly ignore the legal realities in the course of a criminal investigation, and make statements like "intent doesn't matter". and, in context, sometimes it's legitimately true that intent shouldn't matter. it produces this set of contradictions that is both putting an ideology against legal traditions and opening up a grey area in what justice really ought to be - depending on context, it's as easy to argue that intent is less important than consent as it is to argue that intent is paramount in determining guilt.

now, we can talk about social engineering and whatnot, but at the end of the day the court is left with making what is an almost impossible determination, given that they were not there at the time.

what enthusiastic consent laws do is provide an objective standard that the court can use. it places a burden on both parties to ask and receive. and there's still he-said/she-said issues. but, at least it eliminates the grey area, so long as everybody is carrying through their legal responsibilities.

so, you're putting out the idea that some women could use the law to have sex with somebody and then maliciously turn around and accuse them of rape. but, in the abstract, this is the status quo. the enthusiastic consent clause places in law what is actually a safeguard against this. so long as you ask, you're safe from malicious lawsuits against you - so long as the person is not so malicious as to lie under oath.

now, people will spin this around in every which way. but what i'm saying is the actual reality of it.


another way to see what i'm saying is this: if somebody has the intent to rape somebody, it doesn't matter whether consent is denied, enthusiastically or not. a violent rapist is not interested in consent.

this a safe guard for what could be called "accidental rape".
actually, i don't think the kids have terrible taste or make garbage music. in fact, i think we're long overdue for a cultural overhaul, and there's a lot of reason to be optimistic that the kids can put gen y through the fucking blender and shoot it out into space.

i just called panic at the disco fans "kids". some of the more pathetic ones are probably even older than me; they're likely mostly within five years. but, i grew up right on the generational cusp, and consistently identified with older gen x types. so, i call them kids - even if they're only two years younger than i am - because that's honestly what it's always felt like, and still feels like. i didn't understand gen y in the 90s, and i don't understand it now. they seem to choose to be dipshits on purpose and somehow revel in it.

but, the actual kids? the ones born in the 90s? they seem to be far more creative, and have far better taste.

i've mostly ignored and skipped gen y. it's not because i was old - i wasn't old. first impressions by most people will assume i'm even of gen y. the truth is that their (my? ick.) music really did just honestly suck. and, there's not really any direction to move in but improvement.

the actual kids will do better. they can't not.
but you kids all understand that, in reality, you don't have a soul, and so nothing happens when you die, right? the electricity stops running, and you're just composted. there's neither pointy teeth, nor goat horns, involved at any stage of this process.

camera came in today.

it works, at least. maybe not so well. lol. well, there's lots of settings to play with....

i'll take it out tomorrow, to start.

it seems to be the plug, but i'm not done testing yet.

it got better when i set the exposure, but it seems to require a lot of the light for the video part. it's going to require a few experiments, clearly.

it's giving me about an hour on the 2 gb card. i'm going to want five or six hours, at least, so one of the things i'll do tomorrow is get a new card....
i think that the way a lot of these debates have been framed for the last 20 years is going to make his proposals hard to understand until you see them actually worked out.

consider climate change. we're so used to hearing about setting emissions targets. but, where has this approach gotten us? the answer is absolutely nowhere. we're used to hearing about taxes & market schemes. these haven't worked either. what's happened is that we've become so lost in the neo-conservative era, that we're not able to even consider anything that isn't a "market-based solution". it's just outside of the realm of imagination.

what nobody is talking about is that the best way to get us off of oil is to build the infrastructure to get us off oil. that's how we've always solved problems in the past: we get the government to throw billions down on getting it done. we didn't twiddle with tax policies to create incentives. we just did it.

i mean, imagine if roosevelt had left the manhatten project up to the market. it's so outrageous, we can't even fathom it. but, that's what we're proposing every time we hear about a cap & trade system or a carbon tax. it's really madness.

if he puts a third of the 20 billion dollars (yes. billion. with a b.) that are in his platform down on transitioning out of the carbon economy, he'll have had a more substantive contribution than any politician in north america has, to this point - and by a good margin. he's not setting targets. but, the truth is that what he's proposing is the most ambitious thing i've ever seen on this continent. it's so ambitious, after so many years of canada collectively having no real ambitions, that it's maybe hard to get one's head around it.

there's a bunch of issues like this.

your skepticism is healthy. i'd encourage it. but, i also think you should take a closer look at that platform and really absorb it.

thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/10/23/Trust-Justin-Trudeau/

cloudburst
There's an immediate, practical way to reduce consumption during our transition off carbon fuels: we need transferable licence plates, so when you don't need your larger gas hog vehicle: 4 wheel drives/trucks for farms, hauling, winter conditions etc you can transfer it to a vehicle that uses less fuel. ICBC could simply charge the rate for the higher cost vehicle and apply it to both, to cover the cost of extra admin.

I have an attack plan when I go into town usually once a week, I write down everything need, buy in bulk and plan an efficient route. Other ways I save energy is to put up a clothes line inside my home. Beware: some clothes racks can collapse creating a safety hazard if a child or cat climbs on them. I boil water on the stove for beverages, boil dirty pots with recycled dishwater in them and fill them with stained coffee cups etc, cutting down on the use of my dishwasher, I also heat water to do the dishes on my wood stove. I create "warm zones" in my home and roll up blankets to place at the bottom off drafty doors.

deathtokoalas
every little bit counts...

but the reality is that the single biggest culprit in canada is how we generate electricity, and this is something the government can take a direct role in.

the second biggest culprit is transportation, and it's hard to blame consumers when the options are not truly feasible. there's no real electric car market. and, there's been no coherent policy to reduce electricity costs.

industry comes in at third, and while the arguments underlying tax policies and market schemes may seem sophisticated, the truth is that they don't work. fines don't work, either - they're the cost of business. this is the hard part, and a big part of the solution needs to be people getting angry about it. you're better off writing a letter to your boss than writing a letter to your mp.

but, the government can do quite a bit through direct investment. yes: a lot of this needs to happen at a provincial level. but the feds can play a role in getting people working together in a common strategy.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

cnusodef

i'm getting close. i really am.

i decided there was a headphone issue, and i should just go ahead and deal with the clock - started fading as soon as i opened cubase, as expected. so, i reinstalled the clock. and - bam - it's sounding perfect again.

i'll have to see what happens when i open cubase. i still need to do some more testing first.

in the meantime, i'm going to repost this instrumental remix of confused, with the added sequencer, because it's a new mix, and i'm really jonesing to move forward.

https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/track/cnusodef

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

this was a consequence of the laughter, and entirely out of his control.


actus reus - clearly
mens rea - certainly not

verdict: not guilty.
that is either a very small didgeridoo, or a very large amount of bullshit.

they've found laputa, clearly.

again: it's the smell.

you want to imagine an imaginary forcefield of odour around the pumpkin that the dog is aware of but we are not. if you work this in as you're watching it, the dog's movements begin to make more sense.

having such a sensitive sense of smell is probably a burden, and you probably shouldn't belittle the creature for it. it takes time to adjust.

clearly fake.

but the teacher has no right to take the guy's food or yell at the students like that and ought to be immediately fired.


matthew Sedillo
If it's a school rule for students to not eat in class, than the teachers have every right to do so. An old math teacher of mine used to throw away student food. He made it perfectly clear that it wasn't allowed, but of course our generation of kids love to defy rules

jessica
+matthew Sedillo
but, it's an individual choice to eat, is it not? such a rule would break the constitution of any respectable institution. the teacher does not have the right to such an abuse of power!

ok, so let's take a step back.

1) the existing deficit is structural. there will be no sell-off of auto shares next year. and, oil is not rebounding. the upcoming changes in the tax system are necessary to prevent another ten years of deficits. i know that's not how the liberals sold the idea, but it's the actual truth of it. here is the reality: if harper had won, he would have run a deficit due to low oil prices and silly tax cuts. the liberals simply realized the nature of the structural deficit, and spun it around to present the expectations of unavoidable deficits for the next few years. and, if we're going to have deficits anyways, austerity is just shooting yourself in the foot. smart politics. but, do not be confused: we're in a structural deficit, and the changes they're making are necessary to fix it.

2) the liberals will probably take interest rates up a little; that's a historical truth with the liberal party. but, we're not fighting stagflation. it's not the 70s, and we won't see those kinds of interest rates. the reason is they want people to buy bonds. right now, canadian bonds are a crappy investment. and, housing is in a bubble that needs to crash, anyways.

3) an under-reported part of the liberal platform is that they're planning on returning to more lending from the bank of canada. on some level, this is a meaningless accounting issue. but, if they're increasing borrowing from the bank of canada (specifically on infrastructure spending), then where interest rates are set is less important to the overall debt-to-gdp ratio, because the interest on the new debt grows at a lower rate, even if interest rates go up. that new green infrastructure bank is going to be a subsidiary of the bank of canada. this is a big deal that not many people understand.

4) legalizing marijuana will both act as a huge boost to gdp and as a significant revenue generator.

the liberals pulled this trick in the 90s: next year is a wash, but expect "surprise surpluses" starting a year or two early, even with the infrastructure spending.

the key to balancing the books, even if it's all political, is in diversifying the economy and fixing the tax system - not in cutting spending. this is actually the liberals' strongpoint, as a party. you can take this for granted. i'm more concerned about making sure they hold up to their promises on the social side of things.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/20/liberal-party-economy-taxes-interest-rates_n_8337240.html
i remember feeling a few when i lived in ottawa - and remarking more than once that they really ought to shut down the reactor in deep river.

www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/earthquake-rattles-town-near-ottawa/58800/

Tuesday, October 20, 2015

it's just proof that cats aren't very smart.

no rational being would jump up to open the door when they can just stroll through the hole in it.

this is actually pretty good....

....for a microsoft product.



i hear the google talk has three times the viewer share, and there's a lot of excitement about sony's upcoming talk next month.

but, really - no argument. good points. warrants are important. i'm just not sure why that's not obvious.
"they killed kan-e"

those bastards.

the driver has plates on, so this isn't bright. but, if you're in a decent size truck without plates and you're in a situation, this is actually not a bad tactic. you're never going to outrun them, or win a car chase. but, if you can knock the cars out of commission and get far enough away to ditch the vehicle, there's a relatively decent chance you can get out of it.

i mean, it's a better tactic than trying to win a chase, anyways.

wouldn't a contrarian need to disagree with the label?

appointment

jessica
first, i should apologize for sending you faxes and emails; i don't have a phone.

my name is jessica parent. i saw you about a year ago regarding transgender hrt. you carried on a prescription i had been on for four years and have now been on for five years. at the time, we agreed that you would continue to prescribe the hormones from a distance, because i live in windsor and it's very difficult for me to commute to london. however, when i went to renew the prescription, the pharmacy received back a note that you need to see me.

i really can't afford to make the commute. i'm really not quite sure why it is that you need to see me, given that we agreed it was unnecessary. do you need a blood test? could you schedule one at a clinic here in windsor, and have the results faxed to you?

i'm exploring further options, here, but they're kind of bleak. i have an appointment with a family doctor on nov 17, and i'm hoping that works out. i'm also communicating with an endocrinologist, but he's put a condition down to attend a workshop in toronto with a year-long waiting list, and that's kind of a non-starter. i may be able to convince him to waive this, but it's up in the air right now.

if it's just a blood test, i can do that. but i would really like to avoid the bus fare; i could do it, if it's my only choice, but i live on odsp and it's going to be tight up against my budget.

if you require regular visits, i suppose i understand. i think i've been on hormones so long, that it's just a question of a check-up, and i do feel healthy enough that i think it's probably superfluous, but i realize there are due diligence issues, as well. but, i can't commit to that.

in the short run, i'm hoping maybe you could give me another 3-6 months to allow me to exhaust options here. again: if it's just a blood test, i'm more than willing to do that. if not, and you're ok with another few months, i'd ask you to let me know so i can ask the pharmacy to fax another request.

i know this is not ideal. *i'm* the one that's struggling to find a doctor, here, that's at a reasonable distance. i'm not quite sure why this is proving so difficult. but, it's obviously kind of frightening to come up against the idea of not being able to find hormones, after already transition fully for all functional purposes. i hope that the urgency is understood and the difficult situation is accounted for in your decision.

london clinic
Good morning Jessica,

Thanks so much for your email. We can absolutely empathize with the difficulty to get here for an appointment with the distance and financial constraints. I showed Dr. Martin your email and he came up with a bit of a compromise, I hope this can work. He has agreed to extend the prescriptions until June but in the meantime, if you could find a way to make it up here for an appointment that would be very important before we are able to give more beyond this date. The issue is just with the due diligence, for him to be able to be accountable and act in a medically responsible way while prescribing medications it is essential that we see you in our office for follow-ups. Hopefully the extension will make it a little easier to find a way to get here at some point between now and then. Let me know that you would be agreeable to this plan and where you would like me to send the refill for you medications.  If there is anything else I can do to help, don’t hesitate to let me know.

jessicaprobably the easiest thing to do would be for me to fax the refill request from the pharmacy. does that work for you?

extending it to june will give me more than enough time to figure things out here, so that is ideal: thank you. i will know if i need to make another appointment within a few weeks, and if i do i will call you near the end of november to make it. if i don't, i'll let you know as well.

london clinic
Hi Jessica,

I'm so glad to hear this plan will work. You can for sure have the pharmacy fax over the refill requests and I will fill it out and fax it back to them :)
i mostly called it, i just want to point out how i got to where i got to and what went wrong where it went wrong. my predictions were..

liberals: 160-170
conservatives: 95-100
ndp: ~45
bloc: ~35 - but i saw this as a max.

the liberals overperformed in quebec, so that's the major thing that i got wrong. otherwise, it would have been dead on.

error for quebec: the quebec polls were just impossible, near the end. the correct answer was "there are four parties in the margin of error, and the result is unpredictable". but, you can't do that. you need to pick something, even if you're aware it's really just a guess. aggregates break when you have a lot of movement near the end because they're designed to be conservative (as in not change a lot). i thought i picked up a bloc surge over the last 36 hours, and was guessing it would be something like libs 30, ndp 25, bloc 25, cons 15. i actually correctly pulled out low conservative turnout (or unchanged turnout since 2011), which was in direct contradiction to the media narrative; it struck me as absolute bollocks. so, i was thinking that the split would let the bloc come up the middle in many ridings, and leave the ndp with ~15. so, my quebec predictions were: bloc ~35, libs ~25, ndp ~15, cons ~5. what we actually got in quebec was libs 35, ndp 25, bloc 20, cons 20 - which let the liberals sweep. NOBODY picked that up.

almost nobody. i actually picked it up, in noticing that the ndp decrease seemed to primarily moving to the undecideds. but, then the polling firms stopped publishing that, and i was stuck in the dark.

i think that, when the dust settles and the numbers are crunched, what we will find out is that the liberals got a boost on a low turnout in quebec amongst left-leaning sovereigntist voters. people just rejected everything and tuned out. that is the reason that none of the polls seemed to have them so high in their published numbers; if you look at their unpublished numbers, i think it's something that will come out in a distinct swing from ndp to "they're all terrible, i'm staying home and watching the habs game."

errors for ontario: i predicated 90+ seats for the liberals in ontario and -25 for the conservatives. we ended up with 80 for the liberals and 33 for the conservatives. this is better than the models, but still off by about ten seats.

i got to 90 seats by looking at the 2004 federal election, which had the following numbers:

libs: 44.7
cons: 31.5
ndp: 18.1

that seemed to be very similar to what we were seeing in the polling. it netted the liberals 75 seats in 2004; there have been 15 seats added since, mostly in urban spaces, so i added it up to get to 90+. i also suspected the liberals were going to crest over 45, which made me feel ok about the + part. if you check a map of 2004, that would give the liberals a nearly clean sweep all the way around toronto (including brantford, milton, durham, thornilll, markham-unionville, barrie and kitchener-conestoga to name a few), some of hamilton and most of northern ontario.

actual numbers were:

libs: 44.8
cons: 35.0
ndp: 16.6

so, we see the cause of error here: the conservatives polled higher than expected in the gta. nobody had them as high as 35. northern ontario mirrored the 2004 election well, and they actually did better this time around in the 613 than they did in 2004. but that 3.5% difference for the conservatives (clearly at the expense of the ndp) was the ten point difference.

i still beat the models, though.

errors for alberta: i was arguing that the uniform swing was naive and overestimating conservative support; based on the polling, most of calgary and all of edmonton should have been in play. this was based on the idea of the conservatives polling at 53% province wide, which is what the aggregates were suggesting. in the end, they polled at 60% over the province. if you had plugged 60% into those models, they would not have predicted any seats for the liberals (and may have even handed over linda duncan's seat).

6/66 = 9%. doubled is 18%. this, ironically, recreates numbers that are closer to what the models were producing - but it's a total fluke & coincidence.

so, conservatives were being underpolled in alberta. it could have been a last minute swing back, even. i based a calculation on it. it didn't work out because the data was inaccurate.

that will be it for me, here, for another four years.

deathtokoalas, dvlghgfgjhjhfkhghjklka and all the other pseudonyms are signing out until the next cycle. track down my blogs if you're really upset by this.

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-majority-liberal-regional-narrative-1.3279126
i just want to comment on the last point, because it's strangely american-centric for a cbc talking head.

the canadian liberal party is the last remaining descendant of the british liberal party, which dominated politics in britain for a large amount of the nineteenth century. america had whigs (although they were very different than british whigs), which actually turned into the republican party. the liberals absorbed new deal keynesian policies when they were fashionable, but they are at their core an ideologically liberal party. they're the party of mills and ricardo and smith.

when americans hear the term "liberal", they think of vietnam protesters or something. but the term "liberal", in context, actually MEANS "free trade". it refers to trade liberalization. at the beginning of the last century, we called it "reciprocity". in fact, the fta (forerunner of nafta) was borne out of a commission created by the elder trudeau, near the end of his tenure. it was our idea, and it has been our idea since before the time of wilfred laurier - who was quoted by the new prime minister yesterday, and often quoted by his father.

this is contrasted against tory protectionism.

our constitution, largely written by his father, is very "liberal" as well - in the sense of it being very rooted in individual rights.

the term has changed in the united states to something unrecognizable from it's initial meaning. but the canadian liberal party is essentially unique on this planet in holding relatively close to nineteenth century british classical liberalism.

you may want to think of them as halfway between libertarians and democrats, in the american context.

www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/drove-canadas-liberal-party-election-upset/
the one thing i seriously got wrong was where the ndp were collapsing *to*. i figured they'd be around 25, but that the swing would go to the bloc. nobody had the liberals at 35 in quebec, but a few had the bloc at 25. so, i pegged the liberals about 160 and the bloc at about 35. that 25 seat difference on the 5 point swing in quebec, which nobody picked up, is what got me.

otherwise, i think my decision to base ontario results on the 2004 federal election rather than any kind of models (which, by the way they work, couldn't pick up the dramatic swings in cambridge or st. catherines or durham or kitchener or barrie - even if the conservatives squeaked a few of those seats out) was a better overall approach. it was pretty accurate in northern ontario. the conservatives were up a little on 2004 (and relative to most of the polling), and the ndp were down a little. if the conservatives had come down just a tad closer to the polling, the liberals would have won some of those seats - which all the models had as safe conservative seats.

i don't think we'll see another election like this for some time. the lesson is in the uniform distribution not applying well to huge swings. but, it's more on the level of requiring the caveat that the models are designed to distribute small changes.

i would suggest maybe pushing pollsters to get better sampling frames, though. if you could split ontario into three or four frames, you'd be better able to apply a uniform swing to those frames. another idea is to use the last five or six elections as a base, rather than just the last one, and then base the distribution on where you've calculated it's most likely to exist based on a broader survey of where it's existed previously. that's why i went looking for a close match in 2004 to compensate for the huge swing; but, what would have been better would have been to integrate new and old data together.

www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/performance-of-polls-for-2015-federal.html3:38
just some final notes on the election.

the liberals won by doing three things:

1) getting back a good proportion of their base from the ndp, which had been wandering left since 2004.
2) cementing the red tory vote.
3) taking advantage of apathy towards sovereignty in quebec.

but, they peaked at the right time and got a lot of pragmatic support. you could call it a perfect storm, or a perfect planetary alignment. expect polls next month to wander dramatically.

the conservatives are the easiest to understand because they have the strongest base. the conservative base is around 27-30%, but sometimes seems a little higher due to low turnout. there's an additional swing of about 6-8% that they can access under ideal circumstances. this separation became clear in 2004, when joe clark endorsed paul martin and actually swung about that much from the new conservatives to the liberals. you can call this the "clark swing", but the traditional term for this is "red tories". what is useful about the 2004 election is that it provided a direct measurement of how many red tories there are out there.

the fact that the conservatives ran about 30% (a touch higher due to moderately low turnout, albeit higher than the last few elections) indicates that the liberals got almost all of that red tory support.

but, the reality that the conservatives were flatlined at 30 the whole time indicates that the red tories seem to have decided on the liberals a good way out from the election. dominant factors were likely related to corruption - duffy and things of the sort.

the liberals can hold these votes for long periods, but they are moderate conservatives at their core and will bolt back at the first opportunity. they would prefer to vote conservative, unless the option seems too extreme. i expect the conservatives to elect jason kenney, who has a bad reputation amongst these voters and could keep them voting liberal for quite a while. but, if they pick a more moderate option then this support will flow back. further, they will react badly to certain social issues. they're going to lean towards the liberals on a lot of social issues, including multiculturalism, abortion, the death penalty and marijuana legalization. but, an underlooked factor in their swing back to the conservatives in 2006, in addition to the sponsorship scandal, was probably the gay marriage ruling and the martin government's acceptance of it. if the media finds some kind of a scandal, at least a part of it could swing back pretty quick. and, they may have some reservations about assisted suicide. but, to hold these people, they mostly need to run a clean government. that's fighting against gravity.

most of the rest of the swing is traditional liberal support, which is actually still running a little low - the ndp managed to hold about a third of it. they're going to want to see the liberals avoid getting too mixed up in foreign conflicts, which could be somewhat of a weak spot. the tpp is a wildcard. the environment is a growing dominant concern amongst younger voters. but, the point is that this support is mostly policy driven, and something they consequently have far more control over. the ontario liberals have - up until recently - done a good job in holding this support by actually putting through good policy positions. if the liberals actually do this, they could even eat further into ndp support as the holdout liberals slowly give in.

it remains to be seen whether or not they can hold their support in quebec, but i think it is largely out of their hands. the bloc need to make some big decisions.

a disaster scenario will occur if the liberals misinterpret the situation and start pandering to red tories. what the red tories base their voting decisions on is broadly unattainable: every government has corruption in it, but they keep switching sides naively hoping it will reduce corruption. it's the definition of insanity. but, it's been happening for a long time and will keep happening. the pandering will get them nowhere, but will piss off the base they won back. we'll be thrown back to the situation we were in in 2011.

part of the reason i endorsed the liberals is that i was convinced they've come to understand that. but, we'll see if they do or not.

if they act like liberals, and keep acting like liberals, the younger trudeau could be in power for longer than his father - as the conservatives spin-out trying to please their base, and the ndp have difficulty articulating why they'd be better.

if they act like conservatives, expect the government to be short-lived.
wow. snl has really lost it's edge. twenty years ago.

this doesn't even pretend to be insightful satire. it's half an attempt to explain the candidates to a disinterested audience, and half a collection of surface-deep caricatures that could apply to more or less anybody.

there's a lot to play with here. and, there's actually quite a bit of competition out there. i know that snl is basically catering to a prime time network tv sitcom audience nowadays, but it's hard to believe that the lowest common denominator is so small.

bernie has been transparent that his primary aim is to try and alter the narrative, and that is working. and, his answer on the socialism issue - which is basically that most americans don't understand what socialism is, and would support it if they did - is correct in the abstract. there's tons of polling on this. if you ask americans about socialism, they reject it. but, if you ask them about socialist policies, they support them. it's a sad state of affairs, but it has been true for a very long time [it's something chomsky was fond of pointing out at least as far back as the 80s].

but, anderson cooper is bringing up a valid point. you get this 45/45 split in american politics that is partisan and doesn't move. you're stuck winning elections with the remaining "independents", who are also generally the least informed members of the public. the two party system has created this reality where big money gets to define narratives and win elections because it's the only way that the swing vote interacts with issues. it's just a very narrow battlefield, and because it's so narrow, it's so easy to control. sanders is an easy target.

could he increase turnout and overpower it? this is the correct answer: it's not the least risky choice for the democratic party.

it's a harder road to walk down, but the country would be better off in the long run if people like sanders were helping to build a third party, although that should be happening at the congressional level rather than the presidential level. i mean, it's what he's done. he has a base to work with. a model. a long, hard road - but one that could be emulated. that said, and because the important shift needs to be happening congressionally, i do think that it's important that he's there and getting people to think of things from a different perspective.

but, at the end of the day, the spectrum he's trying to work within out of pragmatism is going to kill him off out of pragmatism.

i'm still waiting for the banks to put their candidate down. i thought it was sanders, which would be outrageous, but it's just not adding up. it's not hillary. they hate hillary. they ran obama against her, they will run somebody else against her. it looked like it was going to be fiorina, but that seemed like an attempt to neutralize the female vote that has collapsed with the uncertainty of her winning the primary; it may come back if she takes a wider lead. when it's obvious, it will become obvious.

for that reason, democrats should be questioning their logic. clinton has done everything she can to position herself as the establishment, and the establishment has rejected her. if you allow her to win the primary, the banks will ensure she loses the general.

if i was an american, i'd certainly be leaning towards bernie. but, i really don't see a candidate here that the media will allow to win.

biden is probably the party's best chance. but, the party might not like what he gets you, either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1KJR5UZjM

also: bernie needs to stop referring to himself in the third person, before somebody picks up on it and starts doing a reprise of the comedy routine that turned bob dole into a joke.

that's fertile ground.

Monday, October 19, 2015

so, why am i doing this? what are my motives? what are my goals?

the cynical assumption is no doubt that i'm looking to cash a check,  but in fact i live very happily on disability and have no real incentives to generate income. i mean, i'm not going to turn it down if it comes. and, sure, i'll pay a little bit back. but i'm simply not desperately trying to charm myself out of wage slavery, because i'm actually not in it. i made a decision several years ago that i would not live under the goal of profit maximization; i've held to it fairly well to this point and i don't plan on reversing myself on it.

that's maybe something to grasp about me, overall: i need real motives, not just monetary ones. it's the dour existentialist in me that sees the society around me as disparagingly absurd. i just don't find capitalism motivational; this is the real reason that i have not been able to survive without state aid - i become hopelessly depressed and unable to function when forced to work to exist. i mean, look at how much writing i do for free. i'm rambling with an aim. i need that. methods to madness and whatnot. i don't even mirror with an ad space; and while i do plan to mirror, i don't plan to put ads up. call me a fool if you'd like, but understand that the feeling is mutual.

that said, i do plan to monetize these videos and that is a definite difference. i have not and will not monetize any of my music videos. i'm comfortable with monetizing this, so why not? but it's not a motive, so much as it's just possible gravy. i'm happy as i am, but could think of plenty of activist things to do with a larger stream of income.

the primary reason i'm doing this is to act as a gateway to the music. when i first put up my other youtube channel, i had no real expectations for it. but, i learned quickly that the commenting system could act as an effective means of promotion so long as i was consistently being interesting or provocative - which are things that i'm naturally good at. i found my hits growing relatively quickly, and on a fairly steep curve, as a consequence of posting insightful, witty and/or challenging comments on other people's videos - or, from time to time, just being a good troll.

over the last few months, youtube has taken steps to hurt "spammers". was i spammer? well, it depends. i was certainly advertising, but it was through the stealth approach of posing interesting questions rather than the obvious approach of pushing links in your face. i might suggest we're all better off for that and it's a kind of fair game type of spamming. but, purposefully or collaterally, i was caught up in the anti-spam shifts and have seen hits come down dramatically. as i understand that this is systemic, i realize i need to take further steps.

now, a vlog can only act as a frontend for something else if it is actually interesting, and can actually hold an audience, and the fact that i think i can do this is a big part of the point. on the one hand: merely look at my comments. look at the arguments, debates, discussions. i'm obviously able to generate interest. it's more than that.

i think the primary reason i'm of interest is that i can offer a worldview into a "real life" transgendered person. by that, what i mean is a lower class transgendered person that neither lives a celebrity lifestyle nor has had any plastic surgery. the media is complicit in this perpetual, brutal stereotyping of transwomen as these passive little barbified bimbos that spend their whole lives fantasizing about becoming porn stars. i don't wear fishnets. i don't have a boob job. i don't talk like rupaul. i'm really rather shockingly normal. i think that this kind of realness is what is missing from the conversation, because so many of us are so shy and so unwilling to draw attention to it. i can walk into this space fairly freely; i openly identify as specifically trans and will actually correct you if you suggest or imply otherwise. i have no social aspirations in either gender for this kind of open discussion to interfere with. hopefully, by presenting the perspective of a "normal" trans person, i can help break down stereotypes of the shallow, materialistic porn star or model wannabe transfemale. did you know that transgendered people are actually statistically of greater likelihood to be of above average intelligence? it's a condition that is actually correlated very strongly with bookishness, aloof intellectualism and sometimes crippling levels of introversion. very few of us want to be porn stars. most of us would prefer to spend a saturday night in the library than at the club.

the second reason is that i often find myself walking over long distances and mentally putting aside thoughts to write down somewhere later. as i spend a lot of time walking, i spend a lot of time thinking. i think some of these thoughts are worth sharing. this goes back to the same political motives i have in ranting everywhere. i suppose this is more of the traditional vlog, right: the webcam in the bedroom. but, i won't do that. if i'm at home, i'd actually prefer to write it down - i think more fluidly when i'm typing. rather, a substantial part of this blog is going to be me talking into the camera as i'm walking around in the wee hours of the morning, ejecting scattered thoughts and various insights.

that brings up another point: i'm a single person. this is by choice, by desire and without any reservations. i couldn't imagine not being single. but, what that means is that this is an exercise in introversion, rather than a display of social behaviour. as an outlet, that might be healthy, for me.

i also think it will be good for me to need to have a greater incentive to focus on how i present myself. as i'm single, and live on disability, i can go through rather long periods of personal neglect. if i need to be on screen every day, or every other day, that is going to make a big difference in how i treat myself, which will have consequences in terms of self-esteem. i think this will be good for me.

so, these are the social and personal goals i have in running a vlog. they may not always be obvious, as you're following me to a concert or watching me make lunch. but, i hope that i'm able to use this vlog both to build awareness and to help myself deal with various issues - as well as to draw attention to myself as a working artist.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108929126523080872678/108929126523080872678/posts/fHiPrp3Rwd8
well, i was by far the closest of any of the predictions i've seen. what i got wrong was that the split in quebec helped the liberals in places nobody would have expected them to win. but, the bloc vote is still coming in, and it could still get a bit closer.

but i figured it would be a seat or two short of a majority, and it does seem like they managed one, even if it does get a little closer to where i was predicting.

i'll need to look at specific data more specifically in the morning, but it's actually aligned almost exactly to my predictions, except that swing in quebec.

nobody got quebec right. everybody else suggested the ndp holding 35-40 seats. give me credit for realizing that that didn't make sense, but i seem to have jumped on a last-minute bloc bump that was really just statistical noise [although it was present in the data, it's always a coin flip whether you're picking up a bump or not over the last 36 hours - it's equally likely to be noise, and appears to have been this time].

the liberals seem to have picked up around 35% of the vote in quebec. nobody had them that high.

so, i can make a tentative guess as to what went wrong. i suggested that an ndp--->liberal swing would not be enough for the liberals to win rural quebec, and that the bloc would come up the middle. this would have been a decent guess if the numbers would have stabilized at libs 30, ndp 25, bloc 25.

what happened, instead, was that the swing to the liberals was larger than any pollster picked up. we ended up with libs 35, ndp 25, bloc 20. that meant the swing was actually enough for the liberals to win, after all.

i got everything else dead on, almost.

i suggested the conservatives would be around 100.

i suggested the ndp would be around 45.

but, i suggested the bloc would be around 35 (they got 10) and that the liberals would be around 160 (they got 185).

i did far better than the official pollsters, and by citing precedent and using logic rather than using modelling (which i was certainly right in suggesting was inapplicable to this election). but, you have to understand that quebec was impossible to predict. it wasn't even sure what order the parties were in. and, with margins of error over 5%, you couldn't really peg them better than an unordered 10 point spread - which meant you were literally left making a guess.

that said: if there were some numbers putting the liberals higher than 30, consistently, i think i would have seen this coming. and, i suspect we'll find out that turnout in quebec was low, which propped the numbers up a bit. i did see that coming at some point, but i didn't factor it in. and, even so, i would have had a hard time suggesting liberals could win in a lot of the seats they did.

so, i got most of it dead on. quebec was completely unpredictable; i broke with the conventional wisdom, but what actually happened was even more unlikely than my break with the conventional thinking. although, i think we'll find out in the end that turnout was very low, and it's really what caused these unexpectedly high liberal numbers there.
TheDragonCat99
So Harper is like the Trump of Canada?



deathtokoalas
+TheDragonCat99
a new york republican is the right idea, and i've said things like "a less absurd trump" before. but, you really want to think more along the lines of somebody like giuliani.
i've posted this a few places. here's my prediction.

liberals: 160+, but a minority. the major movement is ontario, where they get 90+ seats. i'm basing this on the feeling that the results will be similar to the 2004 federal election, and then giving the liberals basically every seat created by redistribution.

conservatives: -100. just under - 97, 98, somewhere around there. -25 in ontario. losses in calgary. reduced almost entirely to rural seats.

ndp: ~45. i think they only win around ~15 seats in quebec. traditional seats in bc & ontario. a few new seats in saskatchewan and edmonton.

bloc: ~35. the way i see this working is that as the ndp support swings to the liberals, it opens up the bloc in many, many seats. there is evidence of some last minute movement towards them. i should point out that i'm ballparking them around 25% in quebec and the ndp at just about that, as well. there may be some last minute strategic movement to the bloc around quebec city, too.

greens: 1.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/18/election-2015-seat-projections-liberals-trudeau_n_8325024.html