Distinctions - Part 4

I believe we often use words because they're convenient, not accurate. To use language 'accurately' is challenging - depending of course on the subject matter that is being discussed and the individual's intellectual grasp thereof. (Intellectualism here implicitly encompasses education)

And I'm certainly guilty of it too. I had a friend once who'd always inquire what I meant - and I suppose in a way it stuck with me. I mean, it's easy to 'mean' something - not always as easy is to accurately express that meaning.


Naturally we all have our 'blind spots' - and a certain type of people would thus argue that one should just SHUT UP when talking of something they have no proper clue of.

Anyhow. So, what I mean by 'distinctions' may vary. It might just fit onto a broad range of stuff - such that I wouldn't have to bother to stick to it. And in case I might ... I should perhaps apologize, but - that might just be too indistinct.

When it comes to my ambition, the thing is that it just felt like a good headline for what was on my mind. Which now is coupled with a more ... distinct ... focus on the matter of 'distinction' being to basically draw separating boundaries between two things that may otherwise appear to be one and the same. And perhaps also the inverse - which is to take two things that may appear to be distinct from each other and show how they actually aren't. And the tricky bit were: Other than the direction, what's the difference?


Both are analytical tools that employ deductive reasoning - thus both may give us the impression that we're being right in doing so - which is effectively proof that the right and wrong of it need to be determined separately.


Anyhow - for some reason I think I still have to write some more about Clarity. Or 'my' Clarity - or, the parts that people worry couldn't or shouldn't be a part of it.
And ... yea, initially I was going to write something about ... well ... distinctions. But eventually I dropped it. For a few reasons.
One being that it felt pointless - or maybe that's just the feeling I got from a different thing, but the two now vaguely overlap. ...


Somewhere in there is the thing that I don't want to share ... uhm, add to the pile of stuff I've written on this or that, but I also feel like I have to. When the words I produce are largely inconsequential - that is: they merely float through my head - I can think of writing a lot of things. But when I sit down to actually write - all of a sudden there are filters.

And that's why I also hate the impression that I have to answer some questions. It's like a hack to bypass them; And I also don't want to come accross as rude or whatever. But in that regard there's also the added stress from digging into things I'm not necessarily prepared to dig into.

And that's that. So ... I'm kind of done here ... .

---

Except - something came up; And by just a little shift in perspective, things I couldn't write about all of a sudden ... "seem writeable".

Now, while I have some idea ... hmm. No, my mind "is given" a certain spin on this matter - but I don't really know how to rationalize it.
Well - it's something along the lines of: Regarding my Clarity - I don't fully understand what issues people might have with it. Though now I understand it a bit better, so that I can write this, I also understood that at the very least some of the topics should be controversial.
There then the issue would be accumulating around some of the hypotheticals that are maintained in combination with an uncertainty of my motivations and ... let's call it the honest or truthful divine. So, issues like: What if ye supported me - and all of a sudden I turned out to be a Hitler, or started engaging into snuff and cannibalism?

Well, here my answer might be irresponsbily controversial - but at first, that's none of your concern!

The thing is this: While you're in this state, you're not going to support me. If you're supporting me, you already know - at least that's how it should be - that the basis to "what's going to happen if everyone supported me" is the Gospel. That is: Unless you see the signs and turn yourself inwards and unto God, you're not going to "get it" and any kind of nonsensical "what if" scenario might seem reasonble to you.

And that's the thing. How can I convince you that your paranoia is wrong or unwarranted? Suppose it is really just paranoia - pulled from the buttcrack of chaos - there is not much of a rational argument against it because it is entirely unhinged from rationality.
Like, say you worried that I turned out to be another Hitler. I would so continue to argue, that this fear is merely based on the idea that I would sort of have enough clout to possibly do so. And were I to ask: Why? Or what would drive me or us to do so - you might say that you don't know but that doesn't change the fact that we might.

And so, what about the Gospel?

Well, sex-stuff. Snuff and Cannibalism maybe. What's that got to do with the Gospel?
Well, if you're asking like that - I guess you got me because the answer is already out there and it seems like you're just refusing to make the connections. All while any response I or we might have is countered by: But what if it's different? Or a "what if we do it anyway?". Well, I suppose ... then ... I suppose we do it anyway and ... it's probably alright because why else would we but that's probably beyond your horizon to understand!


And yea, as time moves on - I suppose this issue is ever only getting more complicated. As I'd say - those confusions and paranoia are distractions that are to lead you astray from the very simple and obvious path. Thereby, being probably driven by fear, you're going to get incredibly upset about anything that appears to relate to me - thus in turn supporting fascists in order to get rid of us. And eventually all that confusion becomes a problem that we can't fix anymore - by anything but violence; And all I'm saying is that once God chooses to pull out His hammer ... because we literally can't get anything done anymore so it's up to Him to pave a way ... you don't wanna be on the wrong side of things. Wheter it be due to malice or stubborness or perhaps even just stupidity.

Sure, in the latter case I suppose you could attempt a plea - where those who do so by malice are anyway the responsible party. But, whatever the case, here's an attempt at a fix. While we still can.


The thing is ... there are only so many things that can be said. And once we're done ... we're done!
Then we have to hope that it's enough ... or that nobody "falls through the cracks" as it were. So ...

Maybe I shouldn't start with Incest. But if I were to still model this after what I personally care about, that one's at the top of my list. And so the question were: What's so awesome about incest?
And ... first of all I wouldn't call it that. "Awesome". But on second thought ... I guess it is ... in a way ... awesome. To me and ... a few more. But why is it then?
My first impression would say: Because it's forbidden! And that's where we start.

What is forbidden and why? Is secondary. Important, but ... secondary.
So: The real topic here is about the Law and its deeper meaning and truth. But in order to make the case - I'll have to reach a little.

So, the Bible tells us it's forbidden. Is that why it's awesome? No! Blasphemy is only cool if it isn't Blasphemy per se. Like, why should we get off of insulting God? That ... makes no sense!
Science tells us that incest is bad - at least it has an icreasing chance of producing unhealthy offspring. Is that why it's awesome? Again ... nope! And this one serves as a visual counterpart to the part on blasphemy. There so is a kind of indulgence that gets more and more ugly, each generation - and what makes 'us' roll, so to speak, as far as I'm concerned, is what paths there are around that.
So is there role-play. "Playing Family" while doing it ... is a kind of incest - but totally without doing anything illegal or bad. Except you wanna take the sermon of the mount that way, but ... yea, in a doing it without doing it kind of way, ... well.

So, saying that it's awesome because it's forbidden - if I explore my feelings - comes as a way of arguing that it 'should' be forbidden, because incestuous love is counter to the idea of interacting, even intimately, with strangers. Or so, strangers to the core of the family. And this is a reason that I think incentivizes God to implement measures that are to discourage us from ... doing the thing.


But that's not even half of the story.
As for the real topic, what we're looking at there are different degrees of 'forbidden'. So, the concept being that there are different 'magnitudes' of wrong. A little bit like a hierarchy. Like so are there "secondary" wrongs, or things that are essentially "wrong/bad by proxy". And sometimes a law like "no incest" can be understood in different ways. Each individual way maintaining a different kind of wrong. So, it's not always easy.

And while on the surface this is what we get out of being like a child, asking "why?" - this or that is as it is - that can also be done in bad faith. Where part of growing up is to deal with the collected information rationally, the sick or twisted mind would be uneasy unless it can confirm its own biases. And whether or not man can help you there ... isn't a gamble I'd be willing to entertain.

So - generally we might say that 'murder' is one of those big big bads. The bigger the bad the more of a 'because' type of statement it is. Why were Nazis bad? 'Because' Murder. Sure, some might say "Because" socialism or what have you ... where eventually they'll come around saying 'because Murder' too - but ... "not their kind".

For ... say, 'why' is murder bad? There too are a variety of ways we can answer that. It's like ... eventually there are exceptions to every rule - and those exceptions can be treated like cavities. To the legal concern. And someone might pick one and try to expand on it. Like ... say, murder is bad because we're supposed to multiply. So, murdering murderers is OK. And because by 'we' we mean "our kind" - murdering everyone who's different would turn out to be OK also. We could call that "a morality hack".


Which might be the/a thing I'm accused of. So, when it comes to pedophilia for instance, I would at first imply that harming children is one of those big big nonos. But then further diversify into saying that it's actually their development that matters. That is, their development as individuals - not as drones/extensions of your ideology. Which is where we might different, but ... either way might come with a list of dos and don'ts that work in its favor, but not neccessarily in congruence with other perspectives. Like ... is education good or is it evil indoctrination?
The thing is - being in line with the truth produces a kind of propaganda that isn't bad. Well, because the propaganda is actually just ... the news and stuff.

And yea, while we have different ideas of what the big big badstuffs are - we'll have a hard time agreeing on a lot of things!


And that's kind-of how or why sects or cults have the power that they do. By maintaining a small circle, they can at least maintain the illusion of agreement. So, if the head-priests of that cult were misognynists - they could easily sway the men into compliance - and the women would have varying degrees of compatibility with their ideas. Then, once a religion becomes larger, that "power" is duluted more and more. And to not lie, I certainly fancy something about that, but my message is certainly incompatible with that "small circle" kind of logic.

But so, in the broadness of the masses - the big sea any odd belief would eventually dilute into - we have the luxury of existing somewhat boundless. Which, sure, comes as a problem in this day and age - given how polarized it is - but you may yet wonder about the rights and wrongs that you adhere to, or are adhered unto you, within, hopefully, the freedom that ought to be afforded to you.

And if that seems to you as though I'm distracting from the issues at hand, well - OK. I'm not here to play that game of telling you that I already told you - although that's also the case - but to share some ammunition, or food for the starving mind.

So ... what is the issue at hand?
That the rules are the rules, regardless of their exceptions?
Sure, but ... if there are exceptions - shouldn't we be aware of them, rather than pretending they don't exist?


Well - the thing is, that's too general. And that's kind of where the snake bites its own tail.

It's too general because it kind of implies that I'm concerned of exceptions where I'm not. Sortof. I mean, if we were all on board with the Gospel - these kinds of questions would still "haunt" us - and subsequently we'd settle on some kind of legislation. Even if we said: 100% according to the Bible - we'd still have to individually legislate each and every rule because as they are written in the Bible, they are terribly inadequate to our modern standards.

And to that end we - if things went my way - would have a democracy. Where, if either group had an issue with a piece of legislation - we'd hope to have the democratic process to examine those grievances. Where further we hope that all of us have a healthy understanding of what it means to be part of a reasonably broad and diverse unity.


So, let's look at another thing. Also from my Clarity - there's the kind of stuff that artists like Kingbang and J.M. "propose". To quote JM: "The quest for the Bizzare is but to Entertain. Let us treasure Life and treat women with Love and Respect". Which so comes from the person that builds a lot of their work on their invention of "the Imperial Society". Which has an eerie resemblance of what the far-right political movements try to accomplish within their so called "Denazification" or how to put it. The general gist is that humanity underwent some misogynist revolution - and that advancements in medicine (surgery, chemistry, genetics) are all put into turning women into literal sex objects with zero rights whatsoever. So, mutilation, snuff and body modification. So, a world where disrespecting the female body even as it is within the womb of its mother is par for the course, selling infants to Pedos and gangraping your underage daughter is common etiquette - and the world of the past where women had rights is a distant fairy tale.

And as per the headline - we ought to distinguish between this and that. Like so ... we trans people ... I think we are ... like the canary in the coal-mine. That's how it was back in Nazi-Germany. Once people are on board with violently discriminating against us - the rest would only seem the logical next step. How far and broad ... is perhaps up for debate; However ... not everyone is going to be invited to those debates; And that basically because it has to start somewhere. By which I mean: You may fool yourself into thinking that it stops with us ... but ... no, we'd just be the beginning.

Except another minority makes for an easier target maybe ... but that's neither here nor there.
Or more to the point: If you don't want to be "one of those" minorities - it might help turning on us.

Anyhow - so, there is that side of the story. As for my side - the story is the same as above. To find a way around the bad stuff. And, I'd argue, that ... hmm. For 'general' things, it might be best to just focus on the inclusive rights. And the right to live and the right to love - are basically in support of calling murder bad.

Because: While I fancy "Misogyny" - being enslaved as to have my personal rights stripped from me so that I'm entirely at the mercy of those that own me - that is at first an individual choice, and further one I feel comfortable with due to my faith in God. That those whom He invites in are 'cool' - and so that I must not worry to end up in the hands of a dimwhit.

But so, from my perspective it's also (supposed to be) entirely inconsequential. I mean - say Satanism were all about Misogyny - where whether you're a woman or not depends on how you identify; And also only applies to members of unholy collective. So, doing a gender thing where you can have an entirely female body and sexuality, but not identifying as a woman also exempts you from that misogyny. So maybe we have to invent new genders to fix the gaps - like matriarch - but that's a different story. The thing is: Existing as a slave devoid of human rights, would only matter to those that ... "connect with that". They would behave a certain way unto me, I'd volunteer myself unto that - and that'd be that. What mattered is that there wouldn't be a law against that. There would, or should, however be (a) Law(s) against slavery, abduction, that sort of stuff - where we can now a) See how that law might affect me/us, and b) why it shouldn't.
But how can we then properly ... distinguish?


I mean, doing so is at the end of the day basically just a technicality. I mean, if I have this kind of relationship with these and those, voluntarily, you couldn't get a contradicting statement out of me - and I hope that nobody would try to gotcha me into self-incriminating admissions. Where, yea, given a social setting where "we're not among ourselves", and that roleplay thus no longer valid, it might be as though it wouldn't exist.

As for technicalities.
Which should also persist inside - where it's either the one or the other side of it that were the exception.

But so, yea, it's ... silly. We would insist on it to some extent because that's just how we'd live. And yet there's a point in helping Justicia "see" ... as it were. Providing the proper measures.


And so the simple solution would be to propose and exception. So, "exceptions to the anti-slavery law: ...". "Slaves according to the Satanistic 'Rule of Misogyny'" ... . If things were up to me we'd have some (and it'd work out fine) identification database. So, any ID could be scanned and the stored identification is retrieved - as comparison to the paper provided. Like, say, by some QR code. Taken to the extreme, people could also add their current whereabouts so that illegal remote access can be registered. Though some might find that too restrictive.
Anyhow - naturally that provision comes with a burden; To say: Identifying as a Woman is there not merely a gender thing. And if that were based on German beaurocracy, there would be regular checkups and interviews to ascertain the individual's well being. Especially for the younger ones. Like so could the exception have an exception that would enable us to allow children to self-ID themselves, while they're yet safeguarded from the full effect of the exception.

Obviously, nothing whatsoever would stop people who have the power and the resources to hide shit away to hide shit away. That's not a reasonable argument. We wouldn't even have to talk about it!
But ... the more space 'we' occupy on this planet, the less space there is for ... other stuff.


And yea - I think that's the issue with genders solved. Give or take. I mean, if in some other religion marriage were between a man and a woman, with a very clear set of gender roles, that would be the same thing. Doesn't have to be sexually overbearing.

And, yea, I suppose that's it for today.

---

Addendum: What I share here are meant to be examples. How well for instance the Woman=Slave (Satanism) translates into practical reality ... I'm not sure of. There probably isn't a need to bunch the two together, although there also isn't a need to adhere to the classical "Man and Woman/Boys and Girls" gender tradition. To my sensitivities, gender goes deeper than that - as being the kind of 'love compatibility' I'm concerned of. In that regard there's a lot more than just hole and what goes into the hole. Naturally there are however the two sex hormones and what kind of generalizations can be drawn therefrom. As so, from a clinical perspective. Not a societal one.