My Twitter posts

Monday, May 22, 2017

What if Rachel Dolezal ''Transracialism'' was a big misunderstanding?

I know, I know, what a clickbait-y title, but I couldn't resist. Let's dive right in: what if Rachel Dolezal really does feel as she should have dark skin? ''Transracialism is silly, it implies there is neurological differences between people of different skin colors and would completely validates racist theories'' I agree with that, hence why I didn't understand Dolezal at first. I don't believe for a second she has ''the brain of a black woman in the body of a white woman''. Oh I didn't mind her doing that transition at all though! If she wants to darken her skin and changes her hair, she is free to do so... It's her life, I don't care. I just didn't like the comparison with transgender people at first, because no matter the conclusion, it was awful. 

If you think race is all social, then who cares what gender or race you identify as? Those people aren't suffering, they just want to do as they please! Which I disagree with. Transgenders have a real disphoria, they didn't choose to feel that way. It's not just a whim. On the other hand, if you give credit to the idea that both transgenders and transracials are biologically driven to feel differently from what their body is, then you validate all racist theories that claim there is actual major neurological differences between people of different skin colors. A frightening possibility. 

I didn't like either options, and felt like I was missing a piece of the puzzle. The other day I was chatting with a very close friend of mine who is a psychotherapist, and I brought that subject up, he made a very good point: how is Dolezal not just a severe case of physical disphoria? I couldn't believe I did not think of it before! When you view it without the race part, but just as a physical attribute, it all makes sense. Many people feel physical disphorias. We all know anorexia, but there is also minor disphorias, like someone with brown hair that feel like they ARE blonde, so they dye their hair to feel better. Or someone with brown eyes that is desperate to get green eyes, so they wear contact lenses... Those don't look like disphorias, but they can be. Many people get minor or major esthetical surgeries, it could be argued that those could be because of a disphoria sometimes. So my theory is that Dolezal suffer from a severe case of physical disphoria, she feels like her skin should be darker, and her hair fuzzier, so she changed her appareance as much as she could to appease her disphoric feelings. The reason most of us don't see it is merely because of all the racial politics... I bet if a psy saw Dolezal he would come to a similar conclusion. 

So, what do you think? Does Rachel Dolezal really suffer from a disphoria, but unrelated to the concept of race? Is she just nuts? Is  she just a snowflake?  I don't think so, I think she is misunderstood, and misunderstood her problem herself because of the concept of race. Anyway, that was my short realization on  the topic, see you next time!-KeLvin

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Anarchism, may it be Capitalist or Communist is Subjectivism at it's Worst

Hi everyone. Been a while. I had a little hiatus. Did not know what to write about, and talking about SJWs or the alt-right didn't feel right right now. I mean everyone is kind of sick of hearing about them... So am I. However, lately a certain group of ideologues gained my attention: anarchists. More specifically, anarcho-capitalists. Though this critique of their ideology does also apply to anarcho-communists, I will mainly focus on AnCaps to lighten the text.

So what is Anarchism?
Well,anarchists themselves will give you a variety of answers, some similar to mine, some not at all. I define it as the lack of a political system, not just the lack of government. My reasoning for this definition shall become clearer later on.

Why I oppose it?

For these reasons:
-it's unfeasable logistically and economically.
-it's extremely violent by nature
And, most importantly
-such a society is profundly unfair, unjust, and subjectivist.

I'll review all of these points in reverse order , because if I start with the roads and the sewers the autistic screeeeching will make the libertards eyes explode so hard they won't bother reading. So let's start with a less explored angle to oppose anarchism, especially anarcho capitalism: justice.

One of the most important part of living in society is justice, which in our structured political systems is pretty much always ensured by courts of justice who follow the laws. Those that breaks them are judged and punished accordingly in courts of law that are, in most cases, suppose to interpret as objectively as possible the laws who are the objective standards by which we judge law-breakers. In an anarchist state, there is no official laws. No official courts. No authorities to apply those laws. The "laws" are in the hands of the people... But everyone hold differents laws. That is the problem with such a system based on mediation and common accord without obective standards, subjectivity rules. If I use a gun to protect myself from someone who threatened me with an unloaded gun (which I didn't know) but by accident I end up shooting and injuring a bystander, who get punished for what in court? In our current societies, we know what happen, the man that made threats get charged for it, the man that injured another get judged more lightly because it was self defense, he didn't intent to hurt that bystander and was using reasonnable force against a deadly threat. In an anarchist state, there is no objective law. Sure you might hire a third party to be mediator in an AnCap society, but if that party isn't the government, and that you still need to pay that third party yourselves, how easy would it be for the richest of the two parties to buy out the "neutral" third party?

Plus, without objective laws, you rely on the judging party personnal values and beliefs to weight the most in their decision, sure you came and thought of yourself as a victim... But the third party disagree and charge you with what they consider crimes... Which they can, there is no law but the one the people decide...
Also a good question, if there is no governmental authority, who applies sentences? Who pay for them? Who pay for the jails or executions? The average person? The person that lost their case? How will they pay if they don't have enough? Will everyone pay? If so, who would want to if they don't have relatives in jail, and how is it different than a tax?Won't that private system of prisons encourage long sentences while the anarchist system encourage short sentences so the prisoner can get out fast to pay back for their sentences? Won't slavery go back to existence in such a world where justice is only what the most powerful wants it to be? How is that fair? How do you define rights in such a society? Is there even rights? Not really, laws are used to defends rights, so without laws, there is nothing to defend your rights. Don't think that a communist anarchy is better because "the group makes the justice", mob justice is as terrible as vigilantism by individuals really.  Instead of the strenght of your military and wallet, it's the strenght of your group and the approval of your peers... Social pressure either way.

In a world without laws, people to make sure others follow these laws, and courts to interpret the laws, there is no safeguards for humans' rights. You have no freedom of speech in an anarchist state.
Oh, sure, you CAN say what you want... As long as no one declare your thoughts crimes and by the power of money, guns, or a mob, manage to sentence your speech as a crime. The same can be said of any right. There is no right in a society that doesn't protect any or make objective laws or rights. AnCaps love to talk about property rights, like they are sacred or something. Well, how easy it is for one with enough power to make the rights favor them. How easy it is to erase certain rights and create some for your own gain when even the property rights are subjective in such a non system. You can declare humans as property. Declare intellectual property null or supreme. As long as you have enough power , you can impose your own laws... But if you don't have enough power, then people simply won't respect those self appointed rights, why would they? The only law of the anarchist state is the law of the jungle... Which doesn't protect any right, not even the right to live.

Which brings me to my second point. Anarchism is intrinsically violent. Given the nature of it, you need force to be reckoned with to get what you want. Whether you are a group or a rich individual, you need strenght to defend what you wish to be the laws and rights of thy lands. Mob justice... Well well all know that mobs rarely stay peaceful. As of rich individuals, they can hire mercenaries. Yay to private nukes right?  It isn't a long point but it's self explanatory enough. Our current societies aren't perfect but we only use force when we got no other options, not whenever we disagree. Anarchists that think people wouldn't act like dumb sharp teeth sheeps or rich selfish sharks for their own interests are a little naive in my opinion. But hey feel free to prove me humans are able to not jump at each other throats when there is no laws to keep them in leash...

Last point: it can't be done without destroying our civilization in the process.

Yes it is time to mention roads and sewers.

You can stop screeching now.


Before you think "roads and sewers would be paid by whoever wants them" ask yourself this: who want to pay for it? Everyone need those, same for hospitals, jails and schools, but no one want to actually pay for all that infrastructure! 

Roads for example, let's suppose there is a company that wants to pay for the roads in and out your city and all the streets. Them buying the roads and streets means they can use them as they please: charge tolls, ban certain people (even by race or gender), limit uses, not keep it in a good state, etc.
Now let's say the company decided to ban all people like you from their streets. You have a house in that city. That house is on a street. You can't get anywhere without using one. But now you are forbidden to do so. Means you got to sell your house and move out to another city? Well the company now argue that they also own all that is on the streets... Houses included. A third party court that they paid handsomely declares so. Not that it matters. They have countless mercenaries working for them. If they want to force their self declared property rights, it won't be a problem...

Does anything in this scenario sounds idyllic? Well it does, for the company. In a communist anarchy the process is similar, but the pressuring party might be a cult or large family for example that gained many followers in your city and decided to go against you. A mob.

To me the difference between the two anarchies is simple, it's just the means to achieve control: mobs vs money. I wouldn't want to live in the anarchist jungle.

Anyway,can't wait for all the offended anarchists to yell at me. Will be fun. Thanks for reading my short thoughts on the matter. Might talk about this topic again at another time. See you next time! -KeLvin