Good news in the pronoun wars: $400k payout for professor

[Loren Pechtel]

*spreads out her wings and poses in her shiny black glory* Of course, since that secret roleplaying character was once my only outlet for my real gender identity, I actually did develop a deep emotional attachment to dragons that has, as you can see, stuck like crazy glue.

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

 

[SigmatheZeta]

*spreads out her wings and poses in her shiny black glory* Of course, since that secret roleplaying character was once my only outlet for my real gender identity, I actually did develop a deep emotional attachment to dragons that has, as you can see, stuck like crazy glue.

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

*is probably too small of a target to hit very easily, being about the size of a parrot, and she is quite fast. Dodge rolls*

Well, the story behind that was that my character was originally white, and her name represented the fact that my character was divided between that of a false conservative Christian persona that had strong religious beliefs about moral restraint and an alter-ego that represented my natural impulses, feelings, and instincts. However, the alter-ego also came to represent doubts about my own beliefs, so in a way, this part of me was actually more rational.

However, I rethought my morality, and I came to realize that if my morality was informed by my instincts and my capacity for skepticism, I could develop a stronger morality that really did more to make me a pleasant and helpful person to have in society. I stopped being afraid of my instincts, and I accepted that my instincts were not really the instincts of a truly terrible person. I was not really a dangerous person that could only be controlled by a strict religious morality, but I was really a sweet and compassionate individual.

Therefore, the "moral" part of my mind stopped being an agent that was there to suppress the natural part of my mind, and it started being there to help the natural part of my mind better express deeper intentions that I had accepted were really good intentions. If I needed any kind of morality, what I needed it for was to help make sure that the way that I acted on my instincts really led to me getting the sorts of outcomes that I actually wanted.

Therefore, the relationship had become the opposite of the sort of relationship that it originally was. Those two parts of me had stopped being enemies, and they had become a team. I changed my color to black as a symbol of that changed relationship. For me, the black symbolizes self-acceptance, and it is self-acceptance that leads a person to having the sorts of "wise mind" skills that can lead to them actually making their lives better.

Likewise, the intentions behind "woke" philosophy are good, and when I say that we need to rethink that philosophy, I do not mean that we ought to rethink the intentions behind that philosophy. I think the intention of seeking a remedy for social injustice is a very good motive.

Mass outrage and harassing anybody that does not say exactly the right things is not likely to get any good outcome on behalf of social justice, but it really just constitutes venting emotion. It might give people satisfaction to feel that they have lashed out against someone they see as being to blame for their problems, but a more disciplined movement would be better-suited to changing society in such a manner as to lead to a real, lasting remedy for that injustice.

Many people hear me criticizing "woke" philosophy, and they think that I am just anti-woke. That would be a false assumption. I really genuinely think that we can do a lot to bring the way we practice the philosophy truly into line with getting the sorts of outcomes that we are looking for.

There is merely a need to start practicing "wise mind" skills. The injustice is a real problem, and we can learn to deal with that justice in a way that helps us instead of hurts us. We can stop just looking for people to rage at because of that injustice, and we can start building better relations with allies and use empathy to get to the roots of the misunderstandings that really lead to those injustices. There is a lot of good that can be done by acknowledging the reality of injustice and also acknowledging the damaging consequences of just blindly reacting to that injustice.

 

[Bomb#20]

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

Racist.

Show

Not for thinking you can tell the content of a dragon's character from the color of her skin. Thinking that is actually compulsory for being found to be nonracist. You're racist for saying "colored dragons". You were supposed to say "dragons of color".

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

Racist.

Show

Not for thinking you can tell the content of a dragon's character from the color of her skin. Thinking that is actually compulsory for being found to be nonracist. You're racist for saying "colored dragons". You were supposed to say "dragons of color".

That is actually correct. Dragons actually do have different temperaments based on their color, and understanding this is essential to understanding the species. To lack and to fail to accept this understanding is to fail to understand them at all.

Red: risk-takers, and a lot of them have ADHD​

​

Black: individualist, intellectual, and slightly mercurial​

​

Blue: literally all of them are male and unbelievably gay​

​

Green: virtually all female, usually ultra-feminist if they are​

​

Large and white: uptight and whiny, and they can have mental problems​

​

Small and white: genderqueer and asexual, artistic​

​

Yellow: outgoing and friendly comedians, and they fuck a lot​

​

Brown: dependable and helpful, and they give great advice​

​

Purple: do not play card games with them because all of them cheat​

​

Bronze: male, straight, hardcore gamer​

​

Gold: most of them are moralizing, pompous ninnies​

​

Steel/silver/gray: bisexual, male, military nerd​

The list goes on.

While this is partly tongue-in-cheek, this has also been inspired by my experience.

 

[Bomb#20]

Large and white: uptight and whiny, and they can have mental problems​

​

Small and white: genderqueer and asexual, artistic​

Don't size-shame them.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Large and white: uptight and whiny, and they can have mental problems​

​

Small and white: genderqueer and asexual, artistic​

Don't size-shame them.

But size matters in dragons!

Smaller dragons, especially parrot-sized ones, are usually more secure and good-humored. Larger ones are more neurotic.

Dragons are really the products of a human being's imagination, so we have a choice as to our size, shape, and color. Because of that, psychology and culture play a role in those decisions.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why does it make me 'antisocial' and worthy of (presumably highly negative) social consequences to refuse to use the 'she' pronoun for a particular person,

Because you're twisting the language, for no obvious reason other than feeling superior at someone else's expense.

Whatever you think ought to be, standard English is using pronouns that are gendered not sexed. A century ago, sex was extremely important. And sex and gender invariably matched, so there wasn't a distinction to make. But things are different now. Paying the social costs of deliberately misgendering people...

That's an equivocation fallacy -- you're equating "gender" with "gender identity", but aren't providing evidence that they're synonymous.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Bomb#20 By the way, I have a friend that was once way overweight and ate too much. We get along alright, but when I started showing him pictures of what diabetic ulcers looked like, he suddenly lost some weight very fast. .

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

Racist.

Show

Not for thinking you can tell the content of a dragon's character from the color of her skin. Thinking that is actually compulsory for being found to be nonracist. You're racist for saying "colored dragons". You were supposed to say "dragons of color".

I thought she would get it.

I said "colored dragons" and I meant "colored dragons". In standard D&D mythology the opposite is metallic dragons. Metallic dragons are good, colored dragons are evil. White is as evil as black.

 

[Bomb#20]

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

Racist.

Show

Not for thinking you can tell the content of a dragon's character from the color of her skin. Thinking that is actually compulsory for being found to be nonracist. You're racist for saying "colored dragons". You were supposed to say "dragons of color".

I thought she would get it.

I said "colored dragons" and I meant "colored dragons". In standard D&D mythology the opposite is metallic dragons. Metallic dragons are good, colored dragons are evil. White is as evil as black.

People laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian, but they're not laughing now.

 

[Metaphor]

Imagining yourself as a dragon in real life is somewhat disturbing.

 

[Bomb#20]

You will find that you listen better

Oh for the love of god. You are the last person who should be lecturing others on listening better.

It was because of anti-wokeist rhetoric that that man was afraid of me.

What's your evidence for that? It sounds like something anti-trans rhetoric would cause. Do you know specifically what was said that set him off?

In any event, some people have been known to mistake anti-racism rhetoric for anti-white rhetoric, and become afraid that somebody would be coming for them on account of their skin color. Do you think, to forestall that scenario, we should all refrain from criticizing racism?

Anti-wokism tends to be associated with transphobia.

Have you ever heard of a "premature anti-fascist"? It's a concept from the McCarthy period. The idea was that yes, sure, ever since the fascists tried to take over the world starting around 1938, we all know fascism is evil, and all sensible people oppose it. It's good to be anti-fascist, here in 1950. But back in the early 1930s there were already a number of people who were making a stink about how bad fascism was. And the fascists hadn't done anything really evil that early, so why did these people go off on how bad it was? It would be tempting to think their antifascism was prescient -- that they were folks with more situational awareness than the majority -- but no, according to the McCarthyists, their antifascism wasn't ahead of its time, but premature. It supposedly showed not that the early anti-fascists were smarter but rather that they had worse reasons for being against the fascists. I.e., the McCarthyists figured premature anti-fascism tends to be associated with communism. The communists were among the first people to sound the alarm about fascism; consequently anybody who had made an issue of fascism before the late 1930s was suspected of being a communist, and they figured he should be investigated, accused, and vilified for his putative communist tendencies.

Are you following? The point of my little history lesson is, when somebody criticizes the wokes and you react by blaming him for transphobia even though he didn't say anything against trans people, you are being a McCarthyist. Don't be a McCarthyist.

Anarchy cannot really be pursued by creating chaos because chaos is almost invariably used as an excuse for imposing tyranny. People are only tempted to truckle to a tyrant when they are afraid, angry, and helpless, and these feelings tend to be a consequence of a disordered society. Therefore, we can only succeed at defeating tyranny by the willing pursuit of order.

Ironic but true.

If all you want to say is that continental philosophy is all useless drivel, then just say so.

It isn't all useless drivel. Nietzsche is seriously fun to read, and that has to count for something. Of course half of what he writes is deranged; but the other half...

"Buddha said 'Do not flatter your benefactor.' Repeat this saying in a Christian church. Right away it clears the air of everything Christian."

 

[SigmatheZeta]

You will find that you listen better

Oh for the love of god. You are the last person who should be lecturing others on listening better.

I do listen, but I also talk a lot. This includes talking about stuff that I have already got in my own head. I don't just talk about what you said to me, but I also talk about what I have got on my own mind. When I talk about hateful movements that I have been worried about, I am not NECESSARILY talking about you. I am more likely to be talking TO you about THEM.

It was because of anti-wokeist rhetoric that that man was afraid of me.

What's your evidence for that? It sounds like something anti-trans rhetoric would cause. Do you know specifically what was said that set him off?

In any event, some people have been known to mistake anti-racism rhetoric for anti-white rhetoric, and become afraid that somebody would be coming for them on account of their skin color. Do you think, to forestall that scenario, we should all refrain from criticizing racism?

Anti-wokism tends to be associated with transphobia.

Have you ever heard of a "premature anti-fascist"? It's a concept from the McCarthy period. The idea was that yes, sure, ever since the fascists tried to take over the world starting around 1938, we all know fascism is evil, and all sensible people oppose it. It's good to be anti-fascist, here in 1950. But back in the early 1930s there were already a number of people who were making a stink about how bad fascism was. And the fascists hadn't done anything really evil that early, so why did these people go off on how bad it was? It would be tempting to think their antifascism was prescient -- that they were folks with more situational awareness than the majority -- but no, according to the McCarthyists, their antifascism wasn't ahead of its time, but premature. It supposedly showed not that the early anti-fascists were smarter but rather that they had worse reasons for being against the fascists. I.e., the McCarthyists figured premature anti-fascism tends to be associated with communism. The communists were among the first people to sound the alarm about fascism; consequently anybody who had made an issue of fascism before the late 1930s was suspected of being a communist, and they figured he should be investigated, accused, and vilified for his putative communist tendencies.

The murders and the attacks were already happening by the 1930's, but the first people they attacked were the most misunderstood. This includes the 1920 attack on Magnus Hirschfeld by a folkish mob, which left him so grievously injured that a doctor pronounced him dead. He survived and recovered, but the violence in that country continued to get worse.

Also, if you are interested in logical empiricism, you might be interested in the story of Moritz Schlick, who was one of the progenitors of logical empiricism. He was one of the founders of the Vienna School, and he was their leader. He was one of the forefathers of logical positivism, which developed later into logical empiricism as it reached the English-speaking world, and logical empiricism is very important as a part of modern secular philosophy. He was murdered in 1936 during the rise of Austrofascism.

Germany and Austria were already dangerous places to be, even by 1920, for some people. I would object to the idea that the escalation was not something that people that were at the center of the violence could not have seen coming. For many people, the situation had already become scary.

By the way, I am an admirer of Pyotr Kropotkin. I would not say that I would take his book and apply it in an orthodox manner, but if you read about his history and read some of his work as a naturalist, I think that he was one of the most important and influential philosophers of the time. He had a friend in the United Kingdom named Oscar Wilde, whom you might also have heard of. Pyotr Kropotkin was one of the fathers of the modern anarchist movement. His connection with Wilde played a HUGE role in the early LGBTQ community and how the community was originally organized.

*suddenly flies up over a map of Ukraine* Now, many people think that I am weird to belabor this, but anarchist phlosophy, inspired by Pyotr Kropotkin, is alive in well in certain Ukrainian cities. While those that directly follow Pyotr Kropotkin's ideas may constitute a minority group, I would also point out that cities where the anarchists have had the greatest influence have also been among the most effective at repelling the Russian invasion. This includes the city of Kharkiv, and if you look at the city of Kharkiv in relation to Moscow, it really ought to have been one of the first cities to fall. Instead of following expectation, the defense around Kharkiv has been particularly fierce. While it would be false to say that there are enough anarchists in Kharkiv to give them credit for the prodigious and unexpected resistance against the invasion around Kharkiv, I think that the fact that so many people there have been sympathetic with an anti-authoritarian system of ideas could arguably be related to the culture, in that city, having become naturally inimical to an authoritarian regime.

*alights on the map* Now, I want to be clear that I am, foremost, anti-authoritarian. I do have other views, and my views on economics and taxation are really complex and, whether you know it or not, informed by science. *raises a forepaw coquettishly* I love studying economics, and actually, my reading on the subject goes back to the early work of Knut Wicksell. Also, many people would be surprised to find that John Maynard Keynes was a) bisexual and b) politically very similar to today's Elon Musk, actually, including that habit of saying things that come across as more insensitive than they were actually intended.

I'm kind of luke-warm on Musk, but I don't think that being a convinced transphobe is really on his list of shortcomings. He's not a transphobe. He's just a dragon. Dragons don't hate people. We are just rude. Just because he is a dragon does not mean that I always agree with him, but he is nevertheless a dragon.



He actually proposed putting dragon wings on his ship, which is literally named Dragon.

*shakes her head violently to clear it* Pardon the digression upon the digression. Back to the original digression. I actually don't have inflexible opinions about economics or tax policy because the truth is that there is not really a perfect consensus, among economists. Nevertheless, I do think that I would be worried if a political leader were not at least trying to consult with reputable economic experts in regard to topics like tax policy, and I would rather a political leader take the advice of reputable economists than just follow my own current pet theories. I may be literate about economics, but I do not consider myself to be a prophet.

I do not follow prophets. I eat them. Because I am a dragon.

Regardless of the mutability of my opinions about economic theory, I am principally anti-authoritarian. I could never feel comfortable living under any authoritarian regime at all, whether it is right-wing or left-wing. It would not work for me. Interestingly, there is actually a neurological reason why I am the way that I am.

By the way, you should read my weird, wandering, roleplay-laced posts because I read about some interesting shit.

APPARENTLY, entrepreneurial types of personalities (I am one, even though I also work for a wage) actually have different brains from other people. Just like some people's brains are transgender brains, some people have brains that will never enjoy being told what they are or are not allowed to think and how they are or are not allowed to live. This is a brain difference about yourself that you could not change if you even wanted to!

If You Struggle With Authority, Science Says Blame Your Brain | Entrepreneur

People who want to be their own bosses -- like entrepreneurs -- may fall into this neurological group.

www.entrepreneur.com

This is why you might be sympathetic toward transgender people's plight, but when their defenders get too overzealous about telling you how you are or are not allowed to think, it utterly pisses you off. If this is you, then you could not change this about yourself even if you wanted. No matter how long you live, you will never feel comfortable with authoritarianism. You will never feel comfortable with having your own will subverted. Not even for reasons you would otherwise agree with. You are utterly stuck with the brain you've got.

Are you following? The point of my little history lesson is, when somebody criticizes the wokes and you react by blaming him for transphobia even though he didn't say anything against trans people, you are being a McCarthyist. Don't be a McCarthyist.

I told you, I am not on Twatter, which is the primary instrument for promoting those kinds of authoritarian movements. I just happen to be a transgender person, and I am absolutely stuck with the brain that I have. I am not capable of feeling comfortable with being seen by others around me as a "he." It will always feel creepy and unpleasant to me. I cannot HELP but to feel this way. I am stuck with it. The brain that I have is the product that I have. It is not customizable. It is sold as-is, no warranty, and the price is non-negotiable.

However, I also have an anti-authoritarian philosophical point-of-view and an intensely anti-authoritarian brain. When I was a kid, I literally threw a computer at a teacher because he grabbed me by the arm. Because I also like to treat others as I would like to be treated, I see it as incumbent upon me to get you to give enough of a shit about me, as a person, that it matters to you how I feel. I have to sell myself just like I would have to sell you a product. While I can inform you that I will inevitably find misgendering to be offensive, I still have to persuade you to care if you have offended me. If I have done nothing at all to give you any reason whatsoever to care how I feel, then it is quite mad if I expect you to care if you offend me.

If actually can persuade you to care, though, then you will call me by whatever pronoun I wish to be called, not because you are afraid of getting into trouble for calling me something else but because I am your friend. It is natural for you to want your friend to feel comfortable and happy. This is not a "woke religion" imposing restrictions upon your behavior, but it is your own rational behavior toward someone for whom you feel at least a small degree of affection. You like your friends, and you want them to feel good, even if you personally think that the things that make them feel good are a little weird.

However, I am also going to point out that anti-wokism is not really making a departure from everything that was wrong with wokism. They are absolutely embracing the same exact strategy, but where the wokists were taking an authoritarian strategy toward defending the interests of people of color and transgender people, the anti-wokists are taking an authoritarian strategy toward attacking our interests.

If you look at the followers of people like DeSantis, they are harassing anybody that criticizes his homophobic bill that would restrict the ability of teachers to support their LGBTQ students and students that have family members that are LGBTQ. They are calling people "groomers," and they are doxxing people. They are trying to get people arrested for being child-molesters. They are doing anything in their power to destroy and harass and beleaguer anyone that does not hate LGBTQ as much as DeSantis does. They are using the same toxic authoritarian approach.

My opinion is that it would be better to be like the Ukrainian anarchists during World War II. They opposed both the Soviets and the Nazis.

Me: "Put away the pills, Morpheus." She slams down her glass violently, making the table shudder. "Pour me a shot of the black and then a chaser of the green!"

Morpheus: "Nuuuu! It would make you too powerful!"

Me: She pulls out a giant pistol "SERVE IT NEAT, MOTHERFUCKER, OR YOU WILL DIE!"

Morpheus: He cries and blubbers, but, with his hand trembling violently, he pours the psychopathic dragon her poison. "Don't hurt me!"

Me: The dragon gulps down the sticky stuff and then slams down her glass for the chaser, which she also tosses back. Her already absinthe-green eyes start to glow radiactively, and a great explosion of power emanates from her. Tentacle wires sprout from her head, and she rises up to become the Goddess of the Matrix as she cackles insanely.

The Black Army was the Ukrainian anarchist militia that helped to bring down the Tsar.

The Green Army was a disorganized peasant militia movement that rose up to defend themselves and their communities against both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. And yes, many of them had a tachnaka, which is a horse-drawn armored machine-gun, parked on their property. The tachnaka made sense, in those people's context, because it was easier for them to get access to enough strong horses to pull it than it was for them to keep a steady supply of gasoline.

*poses for you at three-quarter angle*

Black dragon.

*gazes at you directly, so you can see her absinthe-green eyes clearly*

Green eyes. The color symbolism has a history behind it. Black is a symbol of anarchism. Green is a symbol of wildness, but it is also a symbol of the peasant rebellion against both the Bolsheviks and the Nazis. I originally liked the green because it was a symbol of wildness, but the historical link with Makhnovism has made it more important.

My family was living in a rural area for a reason, even though I consider their reasoning to be misguided. I actually like the city better for the same reasons why they were out there: where people in rural areas are nosy, meddling so-and-sos, people in cities literally don't care what you do as long as you don't bother them. My parents, though, were descended from groups of Christians that had moved to the United States and eventually to rural areas of the United States because they were fed up with authoritarian governments cocktating to them about what they were allowed to believe and how they were allowed to worship and how they were allowed to live. They just wanted to get left alone, and they were willing to go to war and commit bloody murder with muskets and bayonets in order to defend their right to get left alone. They didn't want slaves. They just wanted to live their lives. Many of them were also transported over here as criminals, and they were considered to be criminals in the countries they had come from because they had serious problems with authority. Unfortunately, they were wrong about the idea that you are destined to get left alone just because you have fewer people around you. It does not work that way. In a rural area, your neighbors will actually storm into your house and act like they live there, and you can't get rid of them unless you bribe them with food. In a city, you can't even get people to come over unless you host an event and offer free food and beer, and otherwise, people do not even look at you. It is glorious.

Even though I am urban, I really have the same wild spirit, and because I find authoritarian movements to be incredibly disturbing, I have become intensely sensitive to the warning signs of an authoritarian movement.

Just like the German and Austrian folkish movement, they do not advertise themselves as authoritarian, but they do habitually harass any minority group that they consider to be a scapegoat. They terrorize anybody that opposes or disagrees with their current leaders. They nevertheless bait people into following them by pretending that they are rebelling against the status quo, and in the minds of their followers, they are only acting in this way in order to "liberate themselves from oppression."

They use the presence of a rival authoritarian movement as something to set themselves against so as to give people a false illusion that they are the opposite of that other authoritarian movement, but at heart, they are really the same fucking thing in different clothing.

I am not trying to tell you to like how wokeism (or wokeness or whatever) was done because I was never really comfortable with the political strategy that was inspired by using "tweet-storms" to harass and beleaguer and terrorize anyone that disagreed with a specific point-of-view, but I am telling you that the same shit is being used for different reasons.

If you are given a choice between two different authoritarian regimes, do you want to know what system of reasoning I use to figure out which of two intolerable regimes I want most to tell to go set themselves on fire?



The anti-woke people don't care about opposing the things that were really wrong with wokeness, but in practice, they are really opposed to the only good things about that movement.

The truth is that the followers of DeSantis are already harassing and terrorizing anyone that opposes him. If you don't agree with his policies aimed at silencing and repressing LGBTQ, then they will do anything in their power to get you branded as a "pedophile" (the currently popular term for that being "groomer") or otherwise make your life not even worth living. They constitute a very dangerous extremist movement.

I know what these people are like. I have faced them on different turf.

Those motherfuckers don't care more about anyone's freedom of speech than the Russian government, with their phony "denazification" message, cares about human rights. They might pretend they are doing what they do in the name of freedom of speech, but it is a scam.

I recently got a job offer, which was an attractive-sounding work-from-home job that promised a really high salary. They even sent me a big check to pay for my supplies, and they told me to take part of it as a "sign-up bonus." When it was time to buy my fabled supplies, they said, "just log onto Zelle, and send $1,000 to this account linked with an anonymous email, and your very important supplies will be shipped to you direct!"

I immediately picked up the phone and reported them for check fraud. How long it takes them to get caught, I have no idea, but it's not my problem, anymore.

To a cheerful Disney tune, "It's a scam, it's a scam, it's a scam, it's a scam, IT'S A SCAM!"

*flies a quick circle around a mock-up of Big Ben, leaving a trail of pixie dust in her wake*

It's a scam, and all of these news stories that show transgender people getting people fired from their jobs and otherwise behaving badly is being used to build up sympathy for an authoritarian movement that is really aimed at undermining the liberty of transgender people, including transgender people like myself that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

At the time when SOME transgender people were getting on-board with "wokeness" or whatever the right term for it is, I was not involved in that community, but I was dealing with a crisis among the zooey community, which came to a head in 2018 and 2019. It was a fucking nightmare. The old zooey community's organizational strategy was just seriously stupid. The way they organized their community was that they traded dirt on each other so that they would have a system of "mutually assured destruction" to keep the peace, but when some of them turned out to be murderous psychopaths, everything went way sideways very fast. I was never especially involved before, but I have been playing a role in trying to help stabilize the tattered remnants of the community. It is going to take us more than a generation to fully recover, and even that will be tricky and perilous.

Therefore, I utterly missed out on "wokeness" and quite honestly have no truck with it, either way. Believe me, I do not give a damn about "wokeness," but I am just a transgender woman and trying my best to live my life in peace.

Anarchy cannot really be pursued by creating chaos because chaos is almost invariably used as an excuse for imposing tyranny. People are only tempted to truckle to a tyrant when they are afraid, angry, and helpless, and these feelings tend to be a consequence of a disordered society. Therefore, we can only succeed at defeating tyranny by the willing pursuit of order.

Ironic but true.

Well, one way that we try to bring order to our lives is through a system of etiquette. Etiquette is not really compulsory, but it is a generally understood system of rules that you can choose to follow, to make a gesture of your good intentions toward others. You do not follow it out of fear of getting into trouble for not following it, but you follow it because you want other people around you to believe that you respect them.

That is how I perceive the social rules regarding how to behave toward transgender people. It should absolutely be legal for you to be rude, and I would defend your right to be rude as fiercely as I would defend my own rights. I still kind of like it if people choose to be polite toward me.

If all you want to say is that continental philosophy is all useless drivel, then just say so.

It isn't all useless drivel. Nietzsche is seriously fun to read, and that has to count for something. Of course half of what he writes is deranged; but the other half...

"Buddha said 'Do not flatter your benefactor.' Repeat this saying in a Christian church. Right away it clears the air of everything Christian."

Buddha also said that you should never forgive people that have wronged you, but instead, you should tell them to think nothing of it. To forgive is to imply that they have done something shameful, and that in itself is not your business. It is their own karma, and it is their karma to manage well or to manage poorly as they choose. If they have truly done anything wrong, then they will discover their mistake in their next life, but in this life, you are still responsible for being respectful toward them if you care about your own karma.

I am not a Buddhist, though. If I lived in the ancient eastern world, then I would most likely be Taoist because Taoism was an ancient anarchist philosophy. Also, Laozi was a dragon.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Oh, @Bomb#20, pardon me, I forgot to respond on Nietzsche.

The best thing that Nietzsche ever wrote, in my opinion, was Nietzsche contra Wagner; Out of the Files of a Psychologist.

I think that the best thing that Nietzsche ever did in his life was to step into the path of a whip that was intended for a dying horse. In one of his last acts before he became solitary and mute, Nietzsche was traveling in Turin, and he saw a chariot-driver that was beating a horse with a whip. The horse was obviously not really able to move, and if the beating were to have continued, then the horse was just going to die. Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck and refused to let go, and he burst into tears for an injured animal.

Regardless of Nietzsche's imperfections, I believe that he could not have enough sins to his account to outweigh that final act of redemption. I think that, at heart, he was a good person.

I also tend to have sympathy for his egoist views. I believe that authoritarianism, at heart, is only possible among a society that believes in a morality that is based on meekness or submission. In fact, I believe that such a slavish system of morality could not possibly lead to anything in the world besides tyranny. People that see themselves as small and helpless tend to underestimate their own capacity to harm others, and this makes them cruel. People that see themselves as powerless tend to be easily moved to fear, and fear leads to hate. People that tend to be servile are easily dominated, and when they have been dominated, they are easily moved to obedience. Once moved to obedience and to an acceptance of their own cruelty and to have embraced hate, they are dangerous.

However, egoism only works in the presence of a generally benevolent nature.

Instead of focusing on only philosophy, I am going to introduce an idea from the science of personality.

A narcissist is known for having both low neuroticism and low agreeableness, whereas a slavish personality type is known for having both high agreeableness and high neuroticism. What makes someone a narcissist, though, is that that person will not accept that someone is their equal. They will only be happy if they are surrounded by people that regard themselves as inferior or even as fundamentally broken.

On the other side of the low neuroticism coin, though, is the personality type that has both low neuroticism and high agreeableness. This is a person that has a high self-esteem and a general sense of benevolence toward others. This is your classic "Superman" type of personality. These sorts of people do see themselves as powerful, but they also believe that that power makes them responsible for the consequences of what they do. Have a high regard for how much they can do both to help others and to hurt others, and because they are good people, they fundamentally want to try to do the right thing.

I believe that the "Superman" type of personality is what Nietzsche really meant to talk about with his own Superman, and I believe that Superman was, even if Superman was created without any knowledge of Nietzsche, a very good interpretation of Nietzsche's ideas regarding egoism.

Interestingly, the creators of Superman were both from Jewish families. While they previously created a villain using the name Superman, it is interesting to me that they also created a hero with the same name. Considering the fact that they had previously intended to use the name Superman as the name of a villain gives me the impression that they were aware of the fact that this concept had been misappropriated by violent racists in Europe, but what is interesting is that they were willing to rethink the idea of a Superman by imagining a man that was actually both superhuman and a good person.

I would argue that Siegel and Shuster might have understood that the misappropriation of egoist philosophy, by racist authoritarian governments, does not necessarily mean that egoism is necessarily inimical to someone being a decent human being.

Since Nietzsche used his own body to shield a horse from being beaten by a whip, I argue that Siegel and Shuster's later, more famous Superman was really more like the type of person that Nietzsche had in mind. I argue that Nietzsche believed that it was really imperative for people to see themselves as powerful if they wanted to be good people because the world needs people that understand their own power to harm others and also understand their own power to do good.

My opinion is that there can nevertheless be such a thing as an "Evil Superman." The thing is, Evil Superman cannot possibly be an egoist. I am going to tell you the reason why Evil Superman cannot possibly be an egoist. Evil Superman might have a large ego, but Evil Superman could never be accepting toward anyone else that had a large ego. Evil Superman wants to be the only Superman, so Evil Superman would actually prefer to live in a society dominated by people that have a slavish disposition. Evil Superman could never be happy in a society where it was normal for people to treat each other like equals.

Good Superman actually can be an egoist because Good Superman does not want slaves in his life. Good Superman does not need to be admired, and actually, Good Superman would prefer to be known to be a mild-mannered individual. Good Superman would prefer for you to deal with him as you would deal with a social equal, even though he does understand himself as being more powerful than you. It's not that Good Superman does not know he is more powerful than you, but he likes your company better when you are not thinking about it. If you behaved slavishly, then this could only make Good Superman feel awkward and uncomfortable.

I am a dragon, which makes me more like a Godbeast than a Superman, but in my everyday life, I am a mild-mannered individual that shows up to work every day, generally does a good job, and never intentionally bothers anybody. If I am to be admired, then I would like to be admired for how I choose to live, not for the fact that I am a dragon. I really prefer for others to see me as their equal, though, because being seen as people's equal makes me feel that I belong. I am an egoist in the sense that I have intense pride in who I am, and I think it is good if others around me feel the same.

Being able to fly is kind of rad, though.

 

[Rhea]

Yeah it’s weird that they start screaming about religious freedom because they have this intense desire to dictate absolute precision (in their minds) in pronouns of other people. “I will not be made to tell a lie abut your ‘religious belief’ about your gender!!1!” It’s so strangely incongruent.

It reminds me of a discussion with a fundy family about halloween costumes, where they were INCENSED that their son wanted to be a female dog.

Like, it’s okay to pretend to be a dog, as long as it’s not a girl dog?

They are really interesting the way the pick this one thing to be hysterical about.

I'd be somewhat worried about that--how is a dog costume male or female?? To want to be a female dog vs just a dog makes me wonder what's going on.

It was some Disney character. So it was a girl dog.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Bomb#20 Since I was unclear on this, yes, I knew what you meant with the McCarthy thing, but what I am trying to do is use that story to inform you about my own position in this. I am saying is that I actually am one of those prescient individuals that were aware of how dangerous the fascists were long before the Holocaust.

However, I would really encourage you to think of "wokeness" like the eclectic system of ideas that were related to socialism and communism, but I am not a Soviet communist. I am more like somewhere between a Makhnovian anarchist, a "Nordic model" socialist, and a Fabian. I really find the Soviets to be appalling, and furthermore, the Soviets were really hostile toward individual liberty, hostile toward gay rights, and hostile toward the sexual revolution. I still think that the intentions behind wokeness are good ones. I just have a totally different plan for how to pursue it.

In America, though, my dilemma is that McCarthy would have equated me with a Soviet communist for my advocacy of gay rights, even though the Soviets were officially, as a matter of doctrine, homophobic. The budding gay rights movement, which really started during the 1950's with the rise of the Mattachine Society, actually started in the United States and in the United Kingdom and in Canada, and before then, its inspiration was actually the movement that had started in Germany, under the leadership of Magnus Hirschfeld, prior to the rise of Nazi Germany. To equate me with a Soviet would have been lunatic. The only thing that I have in common with a Soviet is that the Nazis are trying to kill me.

Well, the reason why I compare my position with that of Nestor Makhno is that Nestor Makhno and his followers were people in Ukraine that bravely fought against both the Soviets and the Nazis. Think of me as like that guy. DeSantis is like Hitler, and while I also have a Stalin problem on a completely different front, that does not make my Hitler problem any less serious.

So damn right, I am going to be vocal about my Hitler problem, and I am going to rant about it to anybody that will listen. DeSantis and his followers are fucking monsters. Regardless of what kinds of problems that you, individually, might have had with overzealous wokesters, DeSantis and his followers are not any less authoritarian. The only thing that I have in common with any of those overzealous wokesters, who might have troubled you in the past, is that DeSantis and his followers are intent on trying to ruin my life. That is where the similarity ends.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

Racist.

Show

Not for thinking you can tell the content of a dragon's character from the color of her skin. Thinking that is actually compulsory for being found to be nonracist. You're racist for saying "colored dragons". You were supposed to say "dragons of color".

I thought she would get it.

I said "colored dragons" and I meant "colored dragons". In standard D&D mythology the opposite is metallic dragons. Metallic dragons are good, colored dragons are evil. White is as evil as black.

People laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian, but they're not laughing now.

She has talked about a RPG character, I expected her to recognize my joking about her dragon color. Black dragons are evil and have a breath weapon of acid--hence my pick of a strong base. White dragons are evil and have a breath weapon of cold.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Dragon, fine.

Black dragon? Colored dragons are evil.

<Dumps load of sodium hydroxide on SigmatheZeta from a firefighting helicopter>

Racist.

Show

Not for thinking you can tell the content of a dragon's character from the color of her skin. Thinking that is actually compulsory for being found to be nonracist. You're racist for saying "colored dragons". You were supposed to say "dragons of color".

I thought she would get it.

I said "colored dragons" and I meant "colored dragons". In standard D&D mythology the opposite is metallic dragons. Metallic dragons are good, colored dragons are evil. White is as evil as black.

People laughed when I said I was going to be a comedian, but they're not laughing now.

She has talked about a RPG character, I expected her to recognize my joking about her dragon color. Black dragons are evil and have a breath weapon of acid--hence my pick of a strong base. White dragons are evil and have a breath weapon of cold.

I have only played D&D once in my entire life, and that was 20 years ago.

I mostly do book clubs. Lit is my life.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Bomb#20 Just in case I was not clear, shit is going sideways for the LGBTQ community, right now.

Where the subject of freedom of speech is concerned, minority groups that can easily be rendered virtually invisible are in a serious quandary. While it is necessary to figure out a solution for the problem of harmful speech, the problem with trying to do anything to restrict harmful speech is the fact that "what is good for the gander is good for the goose." It is just as easy to restrict the right of LGBTQ and our supporters to speak openly about our issues as it is to restrict harmful speech.

The solution that I propose is my own philosophy, "Just because it should not be a crime does not mean that people should ever be encouraged to do it." When I talk about the concept of "anarchy," I mean that in the literal sense of being "without command." Again, there are ways you can organize a society without the use of command. You can organize people based on reason. You can use humor and love to bring people together and to promote unity. In my opinion, there are much better ways of getting people to do what you want them to do than to threaten them with punishment.

However, we still need to be able to talk about the fact that, for example, misgendering transgender people is not a very nice way to behave toward transgender people. We should be able to say that without also insinuating that it should be a crime or an offense you ought to be fired for. It is possible to realize that a behavior is inappropriate without also believing that punishment is an appropriate way to address it.

I think it is possible to spread this kind of thinking, and I think that this is a very valuable way of thinking. It is a way that we can actually work to try to make society a better place for everybody without resorting to an antediluvian crime-and-punishment outlook on how to go about doing so.

I think that the LGBTQ community is going to continue having problems, though, until such a solution succeeds at catching on.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

@Bomb#20

Have I managed to get across, yet, the reason why I am carrying on? The point is that we still need to be able to talk about the problems that "woke" was intended to address, even if we disagree with the approach that was taken by that movement.

It's kind of like my philosophy about drugs, for example. I actually think that an argument could be made for making all drugs legal, but that does not mean that heroin is good for you. The Danish government actually experimented with the idea of creating clinics where junkies could go and get their fix in doses that were unlikely to actually kill them. They also used those people's visits as an opportunity to talk to them about opportunities for getting treated for their addiction and to make sure they were informed about the real consequences of having that addiction. The program was, as far as I know, a reasonably successful one.

We also need to be able to talk about issues of justice in a reasonable sort of way. We need to figure out a way to bring together reasonable people that are willing to listen. We need to put the approach of escalation and outrage behind us and start helping our society make friends with itself again. I think that we could conceive of a tone that goes something like, "America, I would like you to meet my friend, America."