My Twitter posts

Friday, October 28, 2016

The difference between transcending gender expression and transitioning genders

The difference between transcending gender expression and transitioning genders

I had to talk about this. I know that everyone is kind of tired of talking about it. Transgender activists are tired, Youtubers are tired, the media is tired, I am tired. Everyone want a little break from talking about gender, if only for a day. So sorry to bring it  once again, especially considering that everyone is conflicted about it, and no matter one's stances on the different issues, you are guarranteed to get a lot of backlash. Gender as a topic is now a landmine. So, without further ado, here's my thoughts on genders, transgenderism and more. [Definition of gender I used, down below]

First of all, yes I am one of those people, the ones who say: ''there is only two genders''. However, there is an infinity of gender expressions. Gender is predefined, biologically, we don't choose it, like most of our physical attributes, and it isn't arbitrary, unlike race, gender is defined based on reproduction, a mechanism of life. Females are the one that gave birth, or lay eggs if they lay eggs. Males generally fertilise the egg. There is a few interesting unique cases in the animal world that stray from this rule, but humans don't. Intersex people have a birth defect, not unlike trisomia or a third arm, it's not supposed to happen under normal circumstances.  Transgender people are a special case, their brains register their gender as the opposite one from their DNA and outside appareance, which cause a lot anxiety and confusion. Many specialists are still not sure of the right way to relieve them of their sufferings. For now, the most popular way to deal with the problem is gender transitioning, that is, to artificially trigger a puberty of the opposite gender with hormones injections, and, if the patient desire it, a sex change chirurgy. The efficacy of this type of treatment seems to be a mix bag. Many transgenders report feeling better and less anxious now, but on the long term, it seems the suicide rates are still quite high even after the chirurgy and hormonal therapy. Some argue it's social stigma and discrimination that maintain the suicide rates high, and not just the person's own feelings of dystopia or the side effects of the treatment. This can be hard to assess however, after all, not every post-operation transgender person is easy to tell apart. Many blend in perfectly with the gender they always felt as. Transgender activists argue that transitioning is the only humane thing to do, saying any other treatment is wrong. I wonder why though, there has been talks of how we could treat the feeling of dystopia, instead of yielding to it. Kind of how we treat schizophrenia or depression, instead of letting those suffering from it have, respectively, hallucinations and commit suicide. And, before you say ''but transgenderism is just like homosexuality! and homosexuality can't be treated!'' remember why gender dystopia is considered a mental illness and not homosexuality. The definition of a mental illness is :''(Pathology) any of various disorders in which a person's thoughts, emotions, or behaviour are so abnormal as to cause suffering to himself, herself, or other people''. Obviously, gender dystopia fall in that definition, because transgender people suffer from the dystopia, while homosexuals don't suffer from their homosexual feelings. Granted, they can, because of societal reasons, feel stressed or anxious, but being homosexual, in itself, does not cause any suffering. Unlike gender dystopia, where they suffer simply from their own feelings of not being in the right body, not just from societal causes. So, while we know that homosexuality seems untreatable, and that treating it is not necessary, since being gay doesn't cause any harm, why assume it's the same for gender dystopia? Maybe there is a way to suppress the feelings that cause so much suffering to these people, the same way we suppress the abnormal feelings caused by a depression or a mental disorder. But anyway, treatment was not the main topic of this post, just a side reflection. For now we use gender transitions, and that's fine by me, I just think we should consider other ways to help those people if a less intrusive, dangerous and irreversible way exists.

The main topic I wanted to talk about was the ''non-binary'', those people that identify as something different from male or female and say that they, also, are transgenders. First of all, I thought, as most people, that the trans part was for transitioning from one gender to the other... not transcending genders altogether. Many people seems to think ''trans'' is a gender. Well, no, trans people transitionned, so they are now the gender they always felt as, not an imaginary transition gender! As for people who say they are ''demi-girl'' ,''zuchini'' or ''gender-fluid'' and all those funny sounding or confusing new gender types ( there is more genders than pokemon types apparently), they always sounded ridiculous to me.  I'll talk about two of them, Agender and Gender-Fluid. Agender seems to be for people who identifies as no gender, like none at all. Ooook... But you don't reaallly choose genders... as unfortunate as that may seems, you have a gender, like it or not, that's your choice, but you have a gender. Gender-Fluid push that idea further... they have a gender, maybe it's female, maybe it's male, maybe it's in between. Depends of their mood, so it changes, hence the fluid part. Ok that's ridiculous. Gender is fixed, even transgender people acknowledge that, heck, why do you think so many of them are  willing to have chirurgy and take hormones? Because gender is fixed. Even after transition, they are still in a fixed gender state. Granted, this state need to be maintained with hormones intake, but still, you can't change gender on a coin flip. Those people, the non binary folks, seems to complain more about gender expression than anything.Gender expression is how we socially and culturally express gender differences. You know, skirts, beards, make up, blue for boys, pink for girls, profession choice, etc... Which begs the question: if those people want to express their gender in the way they want, why create new genders in the first place? Nothing is stopping you, as a male, from wearing skirts, make-up and pink if you so desire. No need to invent a gender for that. It seems to me these people just invented new genders instead of accepting that they can express themselves,as a man, or a woman, in any way they like, claimed to be an oppressed minority because they are quirky, and said that now everyones own them respects. That's not how it works guys. Or gals. Or non binary unicorn-gendered folks. I understand that they want to reject gender stereotypes and usual expectations that comes with being male or female by creating new genders, so that these have no stereotype or expectations because of their novelty. However, those new labels are no less able to be stereotyped and prejudiced against. And these people insistance in calling themselves trans, because they transcend gender roles, not genders, is harming those that want or already have transitioned from male to female or female to male. People now lump all those gender role defying non-binaries with those who suffer from gender dystopia, and the people who finds those new genders silly, but don't know much about gender dystopia, are likely to assume, that they too, are just people that want to oppose gender roles, and not people suffering from a mental illness and need support. If you want to oppose traditionnal gender roles, do so, that's fine, but don't invent genders just because it's easier than facing the fact that you dislike your own gender stereotypes and traditionnal roles. Affirm that yes, you are a man,  a straight man, but that no, that doesn't mean you have to sport a beard or that you can't wear a skirt or that you can't be a nurse. Affirm that yes, you are a woman, and yes, you like skirts, but sometimes you like acting ''like a boy'' and that your love of destruction derbies if perfectly fine, that you don't care what others think of it, because they shouldn't care and you shouldn't either. 

Many trans activists are trying to push those new ''pronouns laws'' were you are obligated to refer to people with the pronouns they identify as. [UPDATE November 22, 2016: turn out that law is outlawing only discrimination against people based on gender identity or expression. It's harmless and fine. People, both for and against it, were mislead into believing it was making it illegal to not use someone's prefered pronouns. It isn't. As long as it isn't discriminating agaisnt them, like refusing them service or a job based on their gender identity or expression, it isn't illegal. Everyone was just too dumb to read the bill for themselves.Yeah that includes me. I did read it, both in french and english to be sure to get the good meaning, and it's ok, it's almost symbolic since discrimination overall was already illegal, they are just stating that for gender identiy and expression, discrimination is still not ok. Here's the link ] While I get how it could maybe help some folks that transtioned and have their relatives and acquaintances use the old pronouns not feel upset in public or private, I don't see how this policing of language is helping those same relatives and acquaintances to be more tolerant. Everyone that knows a trans person that transitioned knows that for some people it's just hard to use the new pronouns and name when you are used to the old ones for years of use. Punishing people that are just having trouble transitioning their language is going to make them resentful. Why would they even try to talk to trans people if they can get arrested or prosecuted for a mistake? That could lead to ostracisation and isolation. As for people who misgender just to be mean, those are assholes, just ignore them, report them for harrasment if necessary,but don't prosecute them because they used the wrong word. Also, since those laws were not thought for actual trans people, but for the non-binary folks and their weird pronouns, anyone that refuse to use those alien words will be punished, for, frankly, disagreeing with the idea that ''Xe'' is a pronoun or that ''zuchini'' is an acceptable gender. Punishing people for not liking the way you express your gender is just silly, does not encourage people to be tolerant towards you and, like I said, why all those labels in the first place? The first step in having bigotry based on a hierarchy of categories for something...  is to have labels in those categories. You are just multiplying the potential for bigotry, not unlike those racist folks that like to create more racial divisions, like ''jew''(a religion, nothing genetic or even biological about that), ''muslim''(another religion), ''ginger'' (an hair color) or the infamous ''aryen race'' (bullshit that the Nazis made up). I already talked about why race is nonsensical and arbitrary there (click on these words, it's a link to that post) so I won't talk about it again, but you get why I compared new genders to new races: it's unecessary. While there isn't a thing as biological races, there is genders, that's the only difference in this analogy. No, the goal of those laws is to force people to accept the non-binaries unique gender expression. Unfortunately, I think this will cause the opposite. The best way to make people accept new behaviours and ideas, is to normalize them, trivialise them. Think of homosexuality, a while back, it was seen as weird and scary, now it's the most boring thing in the world... Except in Saudi Arabia and most muslim countries. Exposing the public to homosexuals, through television, magazines and more, normalised the concept of homosexuality, and made people more tolerant towards it. Same thing for most ideas, including what is masculine or feminine. I think why Saudis or Russians are so opposed to homosexuality is because they still mythicise it, for them it's still weird and scary. If they were exposed to non-dangerous, normal gay people, they would progressively warm up to the idea that there is nothing to fear here, that homosexuality isn't a disease or something dangerous and perverted. By making new labels and insisting that these are minorities, that they are different and more, you are alienating them from the rest of society, not integrating them. That's also why I oppose affirmative action or quotas, they allienate women and ''people of color'' (That term, I hate it, I don't believe in races so using it makes me cringe), makes them seems like they are special or different, it dehumanize them,makes them less relatable. 

Anyway, that was my thoughts on all of this. I once was called transphobic because of them. Ridiculous. I may have expressed myself in a clumsy way before, but I certainly am not bigoted against transgenders. I respect people choices, identity and beliefs, even if I think their beliefs or choices are bad.As for identity,such as skin color,hair color, or the gender those transitioning identifies as, those aren't choices nor beliefs, so of course that I don't judge people based on that. I'll even say your weird pronouns, because I am not a dick. However asking me to get rid of my right to not believe you are a ''demi-girl'' is infringing on my freedom of thoughts and my freedom of speech. I have the right to say, and think, that your new genders are not real, and that if you want to express your gender excentricity, you can do so with your own gender, no need to make up one. Thank you for reading, my name is KeLvin, and see you next time!

P.S: my definition of gender: ''the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex'' Merriam-Webster. Notice the ''associated with''. Gender is linked to sex, it's inevitable. As for the typically, it's to remind people that the association may change from one sex, to the other, or neither/both, like how pink used to be a masculine color, but isn't anymore. Some associations remains to this day, like how it isn't false to say males are more likely to be aggressive or violent.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Quick Update #1

So this is just a short update, telling you that yesterday  post really cheered me up... somehow. I feel way better. Just getting this out of my chest did wonders for my mood, so thanks again, and looking back, while I do still think all I wrote as being true, I know that depending on my mood it may sounds worse than it is really. Like I said, death doesn't scare me, but what I didn't make clear enough, it's that it doesn't interest me either. I'll ''get over it'' eventually. But I think it was important that I ''vent'' about those dark feelings, it helps put things into perspective. I may not enjoy things as much these days, because of the stress, but I still enjoy some stuff. I still like video games, watching youtube videos and reading, so I guess as long as I still enjoy that, I should be able to hang on. I felt mostly upset that there was no help, and that I was alone. But I've been a lonely guy all my life, and I managed thus far, so why did I think now would be any different? Of couse I feel better today, but that's what happen with depression, sometimes you get a radical mood swing in the positive, so I don't think it will last. But I feel great today, and it's thanks to yesterday post. So thank you for reading it. And don't worry about me doing something dumb, I won't. I may feel desperate, but I won't do anything too impulsive. I can be a bit of a drama queen at times, so don't freak out. SO that was it, just saying that for today at least, I feel great. see ya next time! -KeLvin

Going Personal...Why I Am Thinking About Suicide So Much Lately.

Going Personal...Why I Am Thinking About Suicide So  Much Lately.


I wasn't sure if I should be writing this.
I suppose the part of me that is still clinging to the idea of a good ending thought writing my thoughts and feelings would exorcise them or something...
I don't know. 

I have been feeling suicidal lately. I say lately, but that's not true. I felt depressed for a loooong while now, and I did have a few sporadic and short thoughts about suicide a few times a month for about... say 14-18 months. However, these last 6 months, those thoughts have become increasingly more frequent and lasting. No longer was I thinking about it only once per month for a few seconds, now it was once a week, and I was thinking about the details. Then It becomes a few times a week. And now it's  everyday. Don't worry though, I never attempted anything. I'm too much of a coward for that. I keep thinking about all the ways I could fail at suicide, and end up locked up in a hospital for my own safety, in a drug or blunt trauma induced coma because I didn't try hard enough, or crippled for life because of ill luck with being hit by a car or not jumping from high enough.  Or worse, a braindead veggie, unable to speak or think intelligently ever again. Call that egomania or whatever, but losing the ability to think like an adult is more horrifying to me than death. In fact, death doesn't scare me at all. Not because of how I feel though, I never really was afraid of death. I adhered years ago to the stoicist way of thinking about death: Death isn't scary because it's the absence of everything, there is no suffering nor joy once you die, so why fear it? No, what really scare me is suffering while dying or failing and suffering  in life. I don't even believe in a after life, nor would I care if there was one really. If there is a paradise/hell, then I hope I go to hell. I never believed the theory it's a place of suffering, if Satan is real why would he torture people that lived defying a God that sent even people who suicided to him? If Satan hate God, wouldn't he try to befriend people who also hate God? You know the enemies of my enemies are my friends and all? Plus, isn't paradise the real hell? An eternity spent in a forced state of bliss and veneration to God, losing all free will you ever had so you can be ''happy'' in a cloud land where tensions aren't possible seems rather nighmarish. Suppressing bad feelings doens't make one happy you know. 

But I digress. The point is, I have been feeling this way for a while, and neither a fear of death or of a giant spaghetti monster wrath was stopping me from doing so, only my own aversion to the risks of not dying or suffering too much were. I also feared that I would regret my decision mid-suicide, because I always was an hesitant person. Sorry, I AM an hesitant person. Like I said, don't worry, I won't kill myself yet... My own intelligence and snarkiness is the perfect firewall for now. I don't even feel sad most of the time, just ... empty, tired, devoid of motivation or desires. I did feel sad sometimes, especially at first, when the depression settled, but as time went by and I went through all of the spectrum of emotions, from fake as hell hyperactive joy to raging anger passing by self-loathness and infinite sadness and grief, I kind of stopped feeling this alltogether. I don't even enjoy things like video games now. And my laugh feel void of sincerity. 

What caused all this you ask? Well, what are the leading causes for someone's depression if they have no children or spouse, that they got no one close to them, so no one to mourn either and that they have no terminal illness? If your answer didn't include solitude and/or the lack of money... well you aren't very smart then, because that was kind of obvious. To be exact, in my case it's: crippling solitude, extreme performance anxiety, repeated failures, both academically and professionally, extreme anxiety because of financial stress, a phobia of finding a job, working and just anything work related, self-loathing from being such a lazy slob, but I can't help it, I just' don't want anything... at all. I am resilient to stress and anxiety usually, I did, after all. almost went homeless and lived in a youth inn center, that helps homeless young people and those with heavy problems such as addictions and anger management issues. In fact, they almost refused me that time, because I ''wasn't problematic enough''. You see, such non profit organisations help the youth, but they have priorities. And a near homeless student with an high I.Q, no job, no drug addiction or problematic personnality issues isn't a priority to them. I was even told that if a woman, any woman, asked for help right after me, I would have been refused.  Apparently those organisms have a priority for women over men, in all situations. But that's not sexist isn't it? Treating women like pretty flowers that need more protection and support than the burly strong men eh? Before you get mad, I agree that a pregnant woman would have priority over me, of course, but if a woman is in a similar situation as mine, and  isn't pregnant, I don't see how prioritizing one person over the other based on their gender is fair. But I digress. Again. 
So that was to say I went through that whole episode of my life without being too depressed and without even thinking of suicide, so  it isn't that I am not capable of living under stressful conditions. 

However, there is such a thing as too much anxiety and too much stress I suppose, and I reached that point. I am just tired. Tired of being afraid to know if I am going to eat properly next month, or be able to pay my rent, my phone, my electricity and my only distraction and entertainment source, my internet. Tired of feeling like shit because I fail academic courses I know I could pass with flying colors because of the aforementionned high intelligence. Tired of being afraid of the future. Tired of feeling alone. Tired of having responsabilities. Tired of hearing things like ''Man up'' ''Get over it'' ''It's your fault''''others have it worse'' ''If only you had not...'' ''You underestimate yourself''. I know. That's why I am tired of it being reminded to me everytime I go see my parents. It was suggested that I go seek help... Like if I hadn't try that before. I'm not stupid, of course I tried to get help, but after now four years of being in deep shit and trying to get help I learned the hard lesson my father always wanted me to learn: you can only count on yourself. Thanks dad for this optimistic lesson on how supportive society really is, but I don't even want to lift myself up anymore. I am tired of being the only one on which I can count.  I learned the hard way that when your problems in life aren't drugs or  something that can be solve with drugs,  you are no longer able to be helped by the system, not that anyone would ever tell you that, of course. If your problem is money and/or finding a job, you're sent, at least here in QuĆ©bec, to a job center. That job center can't do shit for you however. They ask you if you know how to make a CV and how to handle yourself in an interview, but if you already know that and like me your problem is finding a job that doesn't give you an heart attack because of the stress or that you can actually do without being immediatly fired, then you are out of luck. The lady will make an embarassed smile, give you empty encouragements, a slap on the butt and you are back in the wild big boy!  If your problem is loneliness, people will give you a few ''tips'' that are as helpful as ice cream is to lose weight. The best the system can do is suggest taking pills to solve the depression caused by it. Thanks social worker, but I think you know as well as me that treating the symptoms of an illness isn't the way to treat it. I also have a nose problem, some sort of inflammation that makes it hard to breath through my nose. So I took an appointment with an ENT... well I say that, but actually they 'll call me back in a few months to give me the appointment, which itself will be anywhere from 6 to 24 months after that call. So I could die of nose cancer or something at that rate. Here is QuĆ©bec legendary waiting times for you... oh what am I complaining about, at least I'll get treatments eventually and for free, if I had to pay for it I couldn't afford it at all.

Plus I have ADHD, which doesn't make my motivation problems simpler, and I might be an highly functionnal autist, since I do have a few of the signs. I would like to know, but for that it's either an appointment in more than three years, or I must pay for it. So for once you know I'm not the one to blame. It's a bummer really, when I became an adult, I thought that if I ever had some hardships in life, I could always count on the government to provide me with some help. I know that libertarians/anarchists must be laughing their asses off, but at least governments try them, they don't ask for money the needy don't have or free slave labor for their services like corporations do. At least governments provide free help, it's more suited to those with addiction problems or problems that can be solved with pills, like I said, but hey, better than what your fantasies would bring us... Sorry, digressing, once again. I am trying to make this less depressing so forgive me for being unable to focus. That's ADHD for you. 

At least, if anything positive must have come of all of this, I think it would be my philosophical and intellectual evolution. I changed a lot since I left my parents at 17. I used to question things less,  and agreed with feminism too. I know, even I can't believe how much I changed and learned. I went from someone lacking the self confidence to stand out to injustices and wrong doings to someone who isn't afraid to tell people who are in a situation of authority in relation to me to fuck off.  A good example is one of my first jobs, I worked as a motel receptionnist for two weeks before being fired. One night, the boss lady and the guy teaching me the job were supervising me counting some money, but stressed as I was by them watching me I made a mistake and was counting too slow to my boss liking anyway, so she took the money from my hands, threw it all over the floor and commanded me to pick it up. It was extremely embarassing at the time to pick that money on my knees while being condescendly looked at by her and given a ''I'm sorry dude,can't help you'' look from the other guy. If that happened to me now, I would have told her '' You pick it up. You're the one who threw it on the floor.I don't have to, that was innapropriate of you to do this in the first place'' and if I didn't care about being polite or losing that job anymore '' Fuck off. Pick it up bitch, and go pay yourself a good dicking to match your cunty attitude'' Then I would have gave her the middle finger, and left the place in anger. Yeah, now I am way more honest than I used to. And If I am sexist just because I would have told her she's a bitch and a cunt, then I don't care, she really would have deserved it, so no regrets there. Well I do regret not doing that at the time, but you know what I meant. I became a much more tolerant, open minded person once I understood how silly it was to believe that one political side was all right, and the other all wrong. I saw how much suffering ideological blind faith was bringing to people, and chose to refrain from it. I became a skeptic I guess. I learnt a lot about not judging people from first impressions and appearances, about the nonsense that is racism, multiculturalism and cultural assimilation. I learnt to understand why people are right leaning, not just assuming that they are stupid or bigots, like I used to think. I began to understand why political extremists are no less different than religious extremists. I learnt more about human psychology than any of my psychology courses taught me. Not that these courses taught me nothing, but what they taught me was different, and more suited at understanding the mechanisms than why and how those mechanisms act how they are acting. I learnt about debating, logic, subjectivity, objectivity, relativity... I learnt that I wasn't made for science or social sciences, but that philosophy was my passion. I learnt that failling in class doesn't make you stupid, or that good grades don't make you smart either. I became slightly more empathic and understanding. I became a better, more mature, person. 

Ultimately, I now feel overwhelmed, abandonned, let down by the system, and everyone, myself included. Maybe my struggles wouldn't be as hard if I had friends to trust and confide to. Maybe my struggles could be solved if I had some sort of financial stability, or if I could find a job I know I can be good at, not just something I have to do and suck at and fear being fired for it.  Maybe, maybe maybe... Maybe all of this pondering isn't helping. Maybe I shouldn't have wrote this... and maybe, probably, that suicide isn't a solution.

 I don't know if my misery will help anyone, or make it worse for someone, but I am not doing this for others aren't I? I am doing this with the selfish hope that my cry for help will be heard and that I will win the lottery or something. I know, how silly. I won't commit suicide today, and somewhere in my mind a little voice tell me I don't want to commit suicide ever, just in case my life would have gotten better and I would have missed it because of my impatience. So dear reader, sorry for the more depressing tone of this post. If you wish to comment, like always, feel free to. But please, don't  lie to me. Don't send me empty encouragements and an half-hearted support. It hurts even more to see that like everyone you are powerless to help me but that you also pity me. I don't want pity. I pity myself enough already, more would be grieving. I guess I just hope for miraculous solutions... because at that point, I am too tired to help myself... I don't know what to do really. I know usually my posts have a more definitive message, or some deep lesson or something, but today I got  nothing. I am sure you can learn something by yourself from my confessions, so serve yourself... Thanks for listening,well reading, me. I was right, I do feel a bit better after writing this down. My mind is more clear now. So thank you reader, and don't worry, there will be a next time, as always. -Kevin  Laprise, because I am not being KeLvin today. 

Friday, October 7, 2016

First Video Script! ''Multiculturalism, Racism and Cultural Assimilation, Why the Extremes Fail''

First Video Script! ''Multiculturalism, Racism, and Cultural Assimilation, Why the extremes Fail.''

 [October 7th 2016] This is a script for a video I will make. Yes, you read that right! I'm starting my own youtube channel ( for realsies this time) ! I will post the link to the video right here:                                   

Hi everyone, my name's KeLvin... Well that was awkward. Ahem, so you probably heard of multiculturalism, right now both the left and the right are talking about it, and it seems to be rather divisive. The left generally praise it because it ''protect'' minorities, but others on the left criticise it for not doing it job properly. The right hate it, because it means having to tolerate others' cultures. I guess they don't really like the idea of eating with chopsticks. Or black people. Joking joking! I know this is just a stereotype of conservatives... And anyway some right folks do support the idea, for reasons I will come back to later. You see, it seems that on the matter of how we should handle the integration of immigrants' cultures, people tend to have radically, but oddly similar, points of views. It's either ''let's be super multicultural'' or ''Immigrants better convert to this culture or we'll kick their asses back to  where they came from''. Those extremes never appealed to me. Let's start with the obvious one, assimilation.

 Assimilation is simply when a culture proclaim itself as the best and want to impose itself, with force and/or coercion by the way, as the only acceptable culture that should be. There is countless examples of countries and empires that tried to assimilate others, but they always failed. The Romans thought they succeeded in making everyone same-y and organised, but they actually ended out taking from these cultures as much as they were forcefully giving their. They learned how great spices and silk can be, they learned about new weapons, new medecines, They also learned about opium... well, maybe they didn't only take the good parts, but they sure learned a lot about asian and african cultures, and it enriched their own culture. As for the Asians and Africans, they got a lot of great things from this forced exchange too! Well it wasn't forced at first, it only was for some regions but you get the point... They learned a lot about organisation, since the Romans were legendary bureaucrats. They learned about their technology, their philosophies and their arts, and so did the Romans with their cultures. The Romans tried to assimilate such a vast empire... it was destined to fail.

 Assimilation only work when you have the numerical advantage, and even then, the results are not what the supporters of this idea asked for. Even if we force linguistic and ethnic minorities to conform to a dominant culture by outlawing their languages and traditions, the process will have an effect on the dominant culture as well as the minorities' cultures. Remember that while assimilation might seems useful, for getting rid of barbaric ideas, forceful conversion is not desirable. We might find other cultures too barbaric, like Islamic countries, but when it concerns people outside of our countries, we can't force them to behave as we wish. We choose the rules on our grounds, and we respect others' cultures as long as they don't conflict  with laws and fundamental principles of the dominant culture. Not tolerating any difference is a staple of assimilation. Nazi Germany is another good example: a country that wished to obliterate every other culture, on it's own territory ( and also elsewhere, but that's imperialism, another story).  Convincing people to adopt elements of your culture is part of cultural exchanges. . Also, force isn't required to get rid of bad ideas, reason and support from the population may suffise. Europe ended slavery with relatively few casualties for example. Oh and the U.S ''melting pot'' system is also assimilationist by the way, it's just that there has been a strong multiculturalist influence these last few years. So, back on the topic of assimilation, The dominant culture always end up adopting elements of other cultures it citizens liked and enjoyed, and the assimilated minorities, even if their children don't speak their native language or practice as many traditions as their parents, they will still inherit elements from that now evolved culture. Yes I did say evolved, because cultures can't be destroyed, nor can they be created, like matter and energy, cultures can only transforms.  Did you know that most cultural elements, mainly philosophies and values, that we can see in Antiquity both in the West and the East are still the same nowadays? Cultures don't really dissapear or appear, they merely split into subcultures, merge together, or exchange elements from each other's and that lead me to multiculturalists, who also fail to understand that idea. 

Multiculturalism was created as the opposite idea of cultural assimilation: instead of forcing itself on other  cultures, the dominant one must protect minority cultures from it's own influence, while maintaining the ''purity'' of their own culture. Presented like this, I am sure you see where I am going with this. Multiculturalism might present itself as tolerant, but it's the ''let's segregate black people instead of enslaving them'' kind of tolerance. It is better than forcing them to assimilate, but it does  still hurt both parties. The mistake most people make is to assume culture is a finite, objective thing, like apples and oranges are both finite, objective fruits. They are correct to say they are different, but they don't view it with the right angle. To stay on the topic of fruits, cultures are more like juices than solid fruits: like juices, you can mix them to different degrees to get different results. The flavors created will be unique and different, not everyone will like the new flavors, there is always a risk of creating terrible flavors, but without taking the risk you'll never know which delicious cocktails you can make.

Multiculturalists think that by segregating cultures they will protect both the small and big ones, but this kind of thinking is on the same level as nationalists that believe immigrants will destroy their culture, it's a reasoning born of a false premisse, a non-sequitur. Those people, both on the left and on the right, believe that all cultures are unique and pure, like a beautiful orange, and that mixing cultures with other fruits, say a crispy apple, will always end up making a messy inedible puree. They always remind me of these people both black and white, that used to oppose interacial relationships because both wanted to maintain the ''purity'' of their races from the ''evil Negros/Neanderthals''. It's a point of view that is so relative and subjective that it is ultimately meaningless. What is black? What is white? Don't answer, it was a rethorical question, you see, depending on who you ask, you probably will get different answers. Not everyone use the same subjective criterias for ''blackness'', ''whiteness'' ''Americaness'' or ''Canadianess''. Some will say that black people must have  a skin at least this dark, or that if they are this pale, they are actually white, but some people might disagree, and say that no, that person is actually black. Those concepts can't be objective because they are highly relative. You are only black compared to what is white, the same way you can only be poor compared to what is rich or old compared to what is new. And since it's relative, it's also subjective, because everything you see you will inevitably see it in relation to you. People are poor when they make less than you, or you are poor when most make more than you. You use an old smartphone if everyone around you use a newer one, but it's as new as everyone else, if most people use a phone as old as yours. That's where culture is relative.

This is not to say that you can't argue with reason that some elements of a culture are better than others. Having freedom of speech or separating religion from state affairs is definitely a plus for a society, while eating with a fork or with chopsticks is rather trivial. Same thing can be said of fashion or gastronomy, there is no objective hierarchy for these, because there is nothing more subjective and relative than tastes and preferences. Though forks are more easy and practical to use than chopstick, that's for sure...  

Ultimately, what multiculturalists fail to realise, it's that by putting the pretty flowers in mason jars you will end up suffocating them, or making them withered because you didn't let the bees polinate them. Cultures thrives when they allow themselves to exchange and engage with each other's. By forcing everyone to adopt certain cultural elements with cultural assimilation, or by desperately trying to curb and discourage interacial  intercultural relationships, you hurt both cultures. Cultures can't be ''corrupted''  because, we, both as individuals and as a collective, decide what is our culture. There is no such thing as ''my culture'', a culture is an inherently shared social object, the same way there is no such thing as ''my race'' if you are the only human on Earth... There is only one race anyway, the human race.

So let's go on a small tangent about race here to illustrate how subjective culture really is. Ever saw ''the most black person in the world'' or ''the whitest person alive'' or even ''the most pure of dalmatians'' in the Guinness world records? You didn't, because a race is an arbitrary classification that we human use for quick references. We say that a dalmatian is a white and black dog that look like this (Image of a steretopical dalmatian is shown in the video at that time), but it isn't grounded in any objective logical reasonning. It's only a difference when we say it is.

Ever saw a stray cat or dog and tried to find out from which ''races'' it was made from? Why? Those racial traits were defined by us, genetically there is only one species of cats, of dogs and of humans. Those cultural classifications were made by us for us, and like everything that has a label, not just racial, we are tempted to compare it with other labels, and rank them from worst to best, with our subjective, and often personnal and emotional, criterias as a guide. Black people aren't genetically more prone to crime, nor are asian people naturally smarter or white people inherently bigoted. Why? Because there is no such thing as White, Black, Asian or even Latino people, there is just people. If Aliens looked at us, would they see multiple races or just humans with different skin colors? Or would they made up their own classifications, based on which cereals we eat in the morning?

Labels are what we want them to be.That's not to say that there is no difference ever within our own species. We still reproduce sexually, and biological gender differences have been observed. But even if science found that the stereotypes we created about each others' skin color or genders were partly or entirely reflected by our biology and not just the way our cultures evolved, should we act any differently? If studies found that men are more prone to violence, and even more if they are black from a genetic point of view, would we be justified in profiling people by gender and skin color? No. Many cities have banned pitbulls from their territory after some violent incidents happened, but they were unable to clearly define what even was a pitbull in the first place. Plus isn't it ironic to ban a ''race'' of dog that only exists because two centuries ago people were really into breeding weird looking dogs by basically making them inbreds? If you keep breeding neurologically more violent dogs to get a specific look, no wonder that particular breed seems to be the problem, while in reality, inbreeding was the real issue.

 In the same way, if you keep perpetuating and teaching that race is a real thing, may it be to reinforce stereotypes and prejudices, or to get rid of them, you may end up strengthening the belief in the concept of race, and by extension, of racism.  I know I am not racist, because I don't believe in races. When someone mention someone's skin color in a way that is not relevant to the conversation, that is almost all the time, I can't help but interrupt them and be perplexed: Why are you telling me that the cashier your story's about is white or black? Would you be as excited to share their hair color or their height for no reason?  I think that it's not just those who are open about being bigoted based on race that are reinforcing racism, but also those  who keep telling us that we must change our behavior for racially motivated reasons. You might think that granting privileges to those you deemed underprivileged or being racially biased in favor of those people helps them, but I think your good intentions are only stirring up racism, not stifling it. After all, if your solutions rely on the concept of race, how are they any better from the prejudices that used the same concept, but in the opposite direction? Your definition of race is no less subjective and susceptible to being used for bigotry as the one your opponents use. The first step towards racism, the ranking of races, is to have races. By tapping into the idea that races are a thing, you hurt the very same people you are trying to help...

 Back to cultures now. There are cultural differences, some of which may seems tied to a skin color, but it's by exchanging ideas, concepts, traditions, technologies,  arts and more that we are capable of achieving great feats such as space travel, international trade or connecting the world through the world wide web. We also ended the big slave trades, slavery is way less common than it used to be. We did it without segregating minorites cultures and without assimilating them or ourselves. That idea convinced millions of people by it's merits alone, it made it way by virtue of being a good, reasonable argument. You can try censoring bad ideas, or banning books like Mein Kamph or the Coran, but you are just making those ideas go silent, you didn't destroy them. Ideas can't be destroyed. By censoring or banning certain cultural objects, we only avoid confronting those unpleasant objects, instead of competing with better ones. Ideas should be fought with better ideas, not censorship and authoritarianism.

 Countries that try to protect their culture from the imaginary cultural  threat of immigration hurt themselves more than they hurt the immigrants, really. Countries like North Korea, Singapour, Saudi Arabia and Myanmar are prime examples of countries that try to protect an identity that never even was threatened, so they just hinder their own cultural evolution instead. It's natural to prefer your own culture, you know, that's called ethnocentrism, and it isn't a bad thing as long as you don't consider everyone else's cultural elements inferior to yours. China is opening up to cultural exchanges with the West, and it's policies loosened up on the economical and freedom levels now that it's less isolationist.

 Many europeans fear to lose the elements of their cultures they like to elements of muslims' cultures that they fear, such as how they view women and homosexuals, but the only way your cultures can change that way is if you accept those elements. Complacency is the real threat. After all, we share many cultural elements, but not necessarily all of them. The Italian Pizza is loved internationnally, so much that each culture took the concept in a new direction, making the pizza an even better meal than it was before, without ever really stealing it from those who came with the idea. On the other hand, not everyone like the idea of eating insects, that cultural element didn't catch on as well as Pizza for some reason, maybe it will later, who knows?

 The reality is, there is  no such thing as ''cultural appropriation'' because no one own a culture, nor is it tied to anything but the people. And as we saw before, despite the differences,we are all ''the people'' .You could make every american and chinese person on Earth switch place right now, and you wouldn't see much of a difference from a peoples' perspectives because they would bring their culture with them. Sure, your history is tied to a specific land, and maybe if you youself immigrated it wasn't the land your ancestors left as an heritage, but history and lands are just that:  an heritage. We are free to embrace that heritage or build our own for our descendants, in a new land if we personally wish so. Multiculturalists countries fail for the same reason as assimilationists, but in a bigger scale: by trying to make every culture stagnant  they all rot instead of just their own.

If you truly believe that immigration hurt Canadian or British cultures, it's probably because of multiculturalism. It creates ghettos and ethnic conflicts, it accentuates racism and xenophobia, instead of diminishing it as intended, which might had gave you the impression it's the immigrants' fault, while it's everyone's fault. A video by Rebel media inspired  me to make this video. I don't like the Rebel, just to be clear, they are like The Young Turks, Fox ''news'', and Buzzfeed to me: Biased ''journalism'' full to the brim with ideologues. But I do watch their videos, just to see what next crazyness they'll come up with, like how I watch Buzzfeed to see how more recycled and retarded their content can become. The video, by Lauren Southern, is saying multiculturalism is a failure for Canada and had worsened intercultural relationships in the country. However, despite everything I just said I couldn't agree with her, what she was describing didn't seems to be a reality I witnessed...

 Then I realized something, I'm a Quebecer, a French-Canadian, and Quebec being the quirky little blue ducky that it is, we do things differently here, and integration is one of those things. There was pressure from the other provinces and the federal government that we adopt the multiculturalist approach, but we resisted, mostly, instead we have interculturalism. Interculturalism is often confused for a disguised form of multiculturalism, but it really isn't.

 While multiculturalists might consider measures such as ''affirmative action'' or ''safe spaces'', interculturalists aren't eager to agree. Interculturalism is about cultural exchanges and growing in an unifying culture, an unifying identity, not a fragmented multiplied and divisive identity as it is the case with identity politics these days. Nor is it an isolationist concept, paranoid about the idea of ''losing'' one's culture. It's pretty laid back actually. One of the idea interculturalism share with multiculturalism for example, is ''reasonable accomodations'' which is a law that say that if there is something reasonnable you could do to accomodate people's cultural preferences, you should, well, you have to, try to accomodate those people, within reasonnable limits. Of course, with a strong push for multiculturalism , many accomodations are not as reasonable as they used to be, but that was to be expected. Those accomodations are for things like the right to wear facial hair because of your religion, or the right to pray in a public place without disturbing others. But these have limits. You can't , for example, ask to wear a knife on you at all times because you are a Sikh, or ask to interrupt a child classes for prayer, those are considered unreasonnable. The same way that muslim women are allowed to wear a hidjab in public if they wish, but not a niquab or a burqua, because those hide your face, which is against the law, especially in places such as airports. It's not just for religions though, accomodations can apply, if reasonnable, to vegans too for example.

The idea is that while we learn from other cultures, they learn form ours, and then both cultures progressively becomes our culture, instead of what is considered two separate entities. Those accomodations are here to normalise trivial differences mostly, not the fundamentals values and principles we have enscribed in our laws. It's all about compromises and taking the best of both cultures. We agree to try their gastronomy, they agree that women are men's equals, or that chopsticks might not be the best way to eat a salad. Like I said, we are free to give and take what we want, without imposing all of it. We have guidelines, with our constitutions and laws, and those represent the cornerstones of our cultures, the founding principles we don't want to change. For example, you can regulate gun ownership without banning guns, which for Americans would still ensure that the second amendment is respected. Remember, It's an Amendment, no need to keep things exactly as they used to be if  present day Americans want to change it.

 I found an interesting research paper on Interculturalism, which I will link to in the description (here it is for those who are reading this or  I want to read you a particularly telling paragraph: ''In keeping with these ideas [integration and diversity], interculturalism advocates a particular type of pluralism that I would define as integrationary. This is its third defining trait. A majority culture that feels threatened by its minorities will feel the need to either assimilate them (which predicts the end of duality) or to integrate them (the road that Quebec has thus far taken). It instinctively fears all kinds of fragmentation, ghettoization, or marginalization. This is even truer when this majority is a minority on the continental level, as is the case with francophone Quebec. This state of affairs becomes an imperative that frames the discussion on how to approach the intercultural reality of Quebec. It highlights the importance that must be given to the integration of minorities and immigrants in order to strengthen this francophonie and ensure its future. Measures that run counter to pluralism (such as those currently proposed by republican secularists) tend to increase the risk of marginalization and fragmentation—two phenomena precisely associated with multiculturalism that have contributed to its rejection. The central idea here is that francophone Quebec is itself in a difficult situation and must avoid fostering costly long-term divisions—it would do much better to create the allies it needs within immigrants and cultural minorities. All attempts at a general model must incorporate this basic concern''

  As you can see, it may share the idea that diversity is a good thing with multiculturalism but applies it very differently. I invite you to read this paper, it's great really. I could talk more on the topic, but I think it's enough for a first video, If you wish that I talk about culture or racism even more and deeper, please leave comments, like and subscribe, I guarrantee high quality writing from my part. Though I don't guarrante great editing, so I hope you don't mind if the graphics I  show you aren't very interesting, It's really more about what I have to say anyways. So thanks for watching and see you next time!-KeLvin