In defense of ... something ... I guess

Well, sorry, but I need to vent - sort of. I mean ... there's a part of me that tries to laugh about those things I'm triggered about ... just because that stuff has become so nonsensical I have a hard time believing that 'most people' can bear to listen to it 'any longer', at any rate or to begin with. And that goes well with the over-all feeling I have, that ... I can't really do anything right now or these days that's really necessary to any extent. Possibly leaving only my own.

I did however accumulate some opinions of which I might at least pretend that they're worth sharing. Starting with:

Racism

And ... I guess I could even try to put it so. "In defense of Racism". In that regard, I do however iterate on a video by Vaush, or if I want to be click-baity about it: In 'response to': "Vaush Explains Racists Only Pretend Race is Real" (by [thermia]).

So, what he argues in that video is incredibly based and valid ... "but also only half of the story!". The full story is, that 'race' can ever only be part of the full equation. And that we can tackle from a couple of angles. The one that got me going is, that within a given 'race', there will be these and those. The patriots and the traitors - if you so will. This highlighted to me, that matters such as gender roles - or corresponding ideals - are mostly what goes into the "race cocktail"; While now someone looking from the outside in would read 'racial traits' as based on their own standards. Well, whatever. The point is then, that there's this overaching concept of culture; As something that is emergent from but not isolated to ethnic groups; Or so: That is part of an ethnic group - or something an ethnic group is a part of. There however is no 1:1 correspondence. Sure could we go to further think of sub-cultures to diversify our understanding - but at large then: Race is merely a front to a cultural understanding otherwise called "an ideology".
As such - we can move on to derive 'the All-Race' from it. In that sense then it is a lot easier and a lot more fulfilling to be racist; And that because anyone we're racist about or against is yet by some margin part of our own. That in essence is what self-deprecating humor is all about; And I'd argue is something very familiar to germans. I mean, inter-germanic racism is just and simply part of our ways. Maybe some might or could take it a little bit too seriously, but well. One fundamental piece of political wisdom I've come to work out the past few weeks is: Good carries the potential for evil. That in a way is the whole issue with the Gospel. God so came to say: Forgive one another. And man then would move on to concoct all sorts of hypotheticals as the cognitive dissonance tries to come to a resolution of what that would imply. But through adapting good ways, people are at greater ease to be good towards each other - rather than being one against the world. So does the good that good allows for create good - in all simplicity - period. [Something about empathy].

the usage of Slurrs

Yea, that has been a bit of a topic in my bubble lately. And again, there's ... something about being german that makes this weird. See ... most of our words have 'intrinsic meaning'. It's something I've been curious about, but today or recently I understood. So, words such as 'retard' or 'handicapped' need one to have an intrinsic understanding of what that collection of letters or sounds is to imply. Which is weird about the english language. They have loads of such words - for which we germans simply have ... compound words. So, when I say "Behindert" or "Zurückgeblieben" - there is no need for a definition. So this whole "what does a word even mean" nonsense is ... generally not an issue here. So 'behindert': "be" a weird prefix thing we germans do to words, there's probably a more academically proper way to put it; and "hindert" a.k.a. "hindern" a.k.a. "hindrance". So "behindred" - we might say, a.k.a. handicapped. Zurückgeblieben, a.k.a. the more literal translation of retard, literally means: 'Zurück' - back, retour, behind ... and 'geblieben' - stayed, remained. So ... stayed behind. Or rather: behindstayed. The thing then is, that it just so happens that physically or mentally handicapped folks fall into the broader meaning of those terms - while the terms themself are internally descriptive enough to imply a more general spectrum of cases where it might apply.

I would even go as far as to argue, that even the german version of the 'N-word' retains enough of that, or so just within the greater context of our lingual antics, that it isn't quite as offensive as in the english. Which reminds me: There's ... we might call it an "epic rant" of some Mark Twain on the german language - who in a segment puts it as such; Remarking it as one of the advantages of the english language that the sounds of their words carry more heft. Where a 'thunder' for instance is impressive, but the german 'Gewitter' is barely evoking any kind of fear or respects. So I guess we can argue that english is an intrinsically more emotional language - and so all those 'fantasy words' that emerged from the cultural hodgepodge that was england got coined because it worked on a deeply primitivistic level somehow.
One can sure speak of advantages thereof. It may be closer to the way these things 'matter' - as per the experience; And so ... it makes sense that one has to also be more cautious of hurtful language. And so there's talk about slurrs or the reclamation of slurrs - as cultural streams war over the emotional impetus behind those otherwise meaningless vessels. - Thereby one however encounters a problem once the intent is to speak emotionally - ... . I suppose that "aristocratic english" is respectively born from an attempt to square that circle. Which then may lead to some out-of-touchness ... perhaps. But well.

But so I can only speak for myself, that at times a more sober 'understanding' of the term drives it's usage within an emotionally charged context. And that's something that the german language encourages. It tries not to persuade through the 'sound' of things, but via the combined substance of their colloquial understanding. So, one of my favorite german 'insults' is the word "Vollpfosten". It means 'voll' a.k.a. full and 'pfosten' a.k.a. 'post' (as in a beam, a signpost, those vertical parts of a railing) - which works as an insult because it's just a stupid word that doesn't really mean anything - nor does it convey anything - other than that it baffles the one trying to decypher its meaning. But, to my understanding at least, it translates badly into english because the language lacks clarity. Which is a thing we also do sometimes. So is one insult some people use literally just the word 'face'. So: Gesicht. So, saying "such a face" - generally in somewhat derogatory, down-looking tone - the meaning is strictly in the emotional space ... . So, the expression doesn't mean anything and only carries the 'vibes' that the one who says it puts into it.

To say, yes: I'm not a huge fan of tone-policing and hence generally tend to agree with those that criticize it. The Bible does in-deed say that we shouldn't call someone an 'idiot' - because that is as murder. And that I also agree with. So, don't say the N-Word unless your pigmentation allows for it, don't misgender trannies, that sort of stuff.
It can however be no universal truth in the sense that me being offended at something cannot be the sole reason for forbidding certain words. Or how shall I say? "I as a german take offense in the usage of the word Potato, because it is used as a racial slurr against us!". Or otherwise "I as half philippina take offense in the usage of the term 'eating' in combination with the term 'rice' because it is used as a racial slurr against us!". Good luck with that!

Gendercriticalness

I would like to make a case for finding a way to describe non-binary and genderfluid and what not kind of people as something other than trans. Perhaps 'meta' or 'inter'. So, between the genders. Or 'exo/exa?' for outside of the genders; Because ... it does seem weird that 'trans' in some sense may mean anything; And whatever gender studies might reveal about the matter wouldn't universally apply. But, believing that it would simplify the modern discourse - or ... "the shitshow" (to use a more appropriate term) - I'd argue is indicative of personal naivity. Maybe there was a day in the past, but as we like to say here: That train has left!

It does hurt me a little be actually more serious about these things; The most humor I can find in it is, that looking around this country, it seems that germany is composed of like ... 60-80% enbies. It's almost like we only pretend gender is a thing. Hence you're also more likely to see the younger additions to our culture (even if born here, immigrant parents still carry enough of their heritage to have an influence) to "have gender". We then only have to make the step to acknowledge that there isn't, functionally, much of a difference between using the pronouns assigned at birth and those of choice - but possibly individual well-being.

With that said - getting misgendered, to me, is an utterly weird experience. Even if I don'd want to care, it hurts. Or at least it sucks. It's a weird mix of everything. So is everyone who does gender me right like a personal hero, whether you like Harry Potter or not (about that: If you're really willing to spend money on that franchise, you're far enough beyond the pale for me in the first place for me to give anything but a fuck about it. What I find most apalling is that this franchise rose to such prominence in the first place. I never liked it - a.k.a.: I hated it back when it was still considered to be cool - and as it turns out: I do not stand corrected!) - and it sucks for me that I have to understand that it does in-deed take effort. But there sure are tiers. There's the slip of the tongue - and that's sometimes more and other times less hurtful. But mostly then just hurtful in the sense of it sucking that I'm stuck in my skin, or that I have such difficulties with my voice. It just sucks. On the other side of that is however what is squarely in the realm of harassment. And so, on face value there is no forgiving that because there are very clear intentions being communicated. Or you're just stupid/uneducated/fooled.

So, against gender-inclusive language there comes gender-exclusive language, so that we get to weird concoctions such as legislation that is expressedly against 'gender-affirming care' ... but also only if it goes against their biology somehow. I'm not sure which nonsense that was a part of; It was pretty recent, but I have to wonder: So, you have the term there: "Gender affirming care" - as a thing - that this legislation is against. And I have to wonder: If they understand it to be 'gender affirming -> care' - how would it be harmful? Certainly, so I would assume, because they don't "understand" or "believe in" or whatever: Gender. So sure, let's call it lazy; It's still indicative of where the weight of academic insight is at. Not on their end!
I mean - there's this whole nonsense about studies. So say that it is understood that gender affirming care works for the most part; And that the exceptions to that aren't plentiful enough to warrant a withdrawal of the implied understanding. That is a simple causal reality. Which goes on when we learn that conversion therapy does more harm than good - and is effectively a form of torture. Another very simple causal reality. Now, what study can they point to, to argue that the understanding concerning this causal reality is flawed or wrong? In all simplicity: I cannot exist. Well, OK, for 'flawed' perhaps - but again: Fundamentally there is a very easy thing to grasp. Gender - or 'sexual identity' to put it closer to how we germans would call it - is an intrinsic property; With the whole social construct thing being totally a thing but not at all what we're concerned about here. So is sexual identity the thing that resonates with the respective constructs - and folks that like to point to that are most likely not really a part of either of the binary. Except maybe in some abstract manner. Whatever.
Anyhow.
There can be no evidence counter to that simple reality - as the statistical probability simply doesn't support that. It's like: If you were to believe those nitwhitts - the US healthcare system, if you could call it that, mutilated children in the hundreds of thousands. But where are the victims? The same thing with this issue of Masectomies - so, breast removal. It takes a second or two to process the claim that minors are getting these double Masectomies - and come to a serious: Huh?
Well, I guess if we're talking about teenagers over 16 we can ... relate to it better ... because ... puberty and stuff. But to there go to say "Children" is a bit of a stretch. Like Mr. Fantastic (the stretchy guy from the Fantastic Four).

So - I'm sorry - I guess - to bother you with 'actual information' or whatever; But just to so drive the point on how what's happening is harrassment. Like, I don't care what sensitivities or sympathies or whatever make you "see their point of view" or at least something between ambivalent and clueless, but there just is a type of gender criticalness that goes flatly against reality.

Now, on the other side - I do get "it" also. I mean, I'm a lesbian. And if I were to use a dating portal to find someone - I wouldn't be interested in some neckbeard with "she/her" pronouns ... "either". I mean, at all. Best I can say in their defense is, that virtual reality gives us a layer of abstraction so that different parts of our selves can be valid - and at my most inclusive I can say that I'm not looking for a virtual woman. But it's complicated. It really is. I mean, there's what is called 'genital preference'. I for my part have what we might call a 'genital fixation' ontop of gender preferences - at which point I'm pretty classical. Or Vanilla, as they say. But, there is more to femininity as just genitalia. And so one can be 'lesbian' in the sense that someone is attracted to feminine traits - while not being too bothered by what type of genitalia are attached to them. But then ... trying to change people's sexual behavior is kinda ... the whole deal here. A.k.a. it doesn't work ... hence: Vanilla rules. So, if you're not that ... I guess it sucks. I get it - as - I'm not entirely vanilla either!

Stupid Lefties

Yes - sure - because it has to work with the headline.
So, I was about to not write this whole thing ... which has been cooking in my proverbial membranes for a while. But then I saw "Jordan Peterson gets HUMILIATED | Hasanabi reacts" ([by Hasanabi Productions]) - and if something as vapid as that person is called an intellectual ... . I mean, it doesn't take much to realize that this world isn't going to work out - for a lot longer - except maybe in the abstract. What does it mean that "the fundamental feminine ethos does not scale"? It's clear to me that one thing that does not scale is his intellect. Seriously!
(By the way, as totally just a side-note: What (some) men think men are better at, is mostly predicated on the fact that men are more willing to take risks. As in: If something is dangerous - you're more likely to find men participating in it. And if women are participating in it - you're also more likely to find efforts to reduce danger. So - saying that men are 'better drivers' is somewhat on par with saying that men are more stupid. I mean, the concept of risk doesn't pair well with also being more rational. But ... well, whatever. Just a thought ... . I mean, one can say that dealing with the risk properly is a rational endeavour. But ... well ... whatever ... I guess ...)

Anyway - was that part of them trying to now so in hindsight shoehorn some socialist/communist (chrisian) idea into their shambled worldview? But well, if so, I'm not referring to those stupid Lefties - as something I would feel comfortable coming out in defense of. The only reason I'd do so rather than navigating a mine-field is because ... you know ... physics and consequences.

Now, I want to believe that the Stupid Lefties I do stand in defense of ... only mean well. I mean, whatever. I don't actually have a lot to say in that regard. The label says it all. Mostly. But, having done a bit of mental gymnastics and some math ... even if the two were unrelated ... I have conceived a model that should properly reflect on what the smart lefties mean by 'wokescolds' - as to show what a stupid lefie is - based on which we can derive some sympathies for them, but ... not fundamentally so. Or how we wanna put it.

So ... where did I take the visual qeues from again? Ah: "Lorentz Transformations | Special Relativity Ch. 3" by [minutephysics]. In it, they showcase this neat little toy intended to somehow present Lorentz Transformations in a more tangible way. Which is about how the speed of Light doesn't change with one's frame of reference. As I like to put it: Rather than the speed of light changing, spacetime warps your relationship to time. That fundamental of a law it is. And similarly we have it with 'the right way' - though I guess one doesn't need complicated math to understand it.
Here's the thing:

Take two aspects of the right way: Progressiveism and Socialism. And in all simplicity: If you're 'too progressive' - you're sacrificing socialism. If you're 'too socialist' - you're sacrificing progressiveism. That, or whatever else we might throw into the equation - to whatever extent applies. And so we can also make a simple case for what 'too progressive' or 'too socialist' even means. With socialism the argument goes that it isn't socialist/communist anymore - at least on in the spirit of Marx. But well. So ... Oligarchy or ... Dictatorships. That sort of thing.

And there you have it. Although one has to break eggs to make an omelette - one doesn't need to be willing to go over corpses to do so.


The End