You are here

Most Concerns with Safety are Bullshit

The moment people stop weighing values within a curtain regard and start thinking things within that regard are unquestionably moral, immoral good or bad, I believe they are thinking religiously. I’m not saying that as an insult, but rather as a mode of thinking. Several examples are leftists with environmentalism, the right with the military, and our whole culture in regards to safety.

Safety matters within a value spectrum. However, our culture’s view of safety is well outlined by the phrase we grew up with: “safety first.” When safety is first, risk taking must be further down the line. When safety is first, we are bad or irresponsible for merely thinking of it as one of many values … especially with our kids.

Safety often encourages neurotic fear within children and adults, and our constant focus on it makes people constantly afraid of life. Risk taking behavior is looked down upon and everyone starts losing focus of all other values.

Safety also encourages relief from government, often in the form of regulation. Since government can provide the auspice of certainty in an uncertain world, people will run to it for safety. What does it cost? No one cares with safety. The cost isn’t considered and other values go out the window.

Most concerns with safety are bullshit. One of the big problems is that our society speaks of all safety measures with the same dire expression, that most people are unable to properly weigh what safety measures really are a good idea and which is irrational safety policing from neurotic busybodies.

Sure, wear a seat belt on a two hour drive. Don’t wash your fruit before eating it. Let your kids go outside and talk to strangers.

Curiosity is the Best Educator

We give Cambria free reign over Netflix and Amazon Prime. She is regularly finding new shows.

Several days ago she challenged us slightly for a minute. She found Family Guy and was burning through some episodes, and I forgot how vulgar the show was. After a little discussion, I thought it was fine and tolerable and Rose decided it was best to not restrict things.

This morning I thought about it a little more while watching some episodes of Blue’s Clues with Cambria. I think Family guy is vastly better than Blue’s Clues for her. Blue’s Clues is basic and redundant. It doesn’t represent life in any meaningful way. It addresses very few concepts of the world in a sterilized fashion without context.

Family guy was chalked full of vastly more complex issues in such a way that is more challenging, interesting and contextual. There are some raunchy jokes that, luckily, go over her head … but otherwise it handles many ideas in a more realistic way that doesn’t limit her cognition into a narrow realm that adults foolishly prescribe in order to plan the life of individuals.

I would never suggest for someone to replace Blue’s Clues with Family Guy. I would suggest for people to allow their children freedom to watch many forms of media including Blue’s Clues and Family Guy. A child ought not be challenged with advanced concepts when they watch TV. We have many desires that media can address in various forms, and when we have freedom, our choices will generally be subconsciously guided to fill the desire our mind wishes to fulfill in the most productive way possible.

The media we consume, the friends we have, our choices in play, our decisions of how to spend our time all have many various and complex purposes to them. Usually, we can’t even identify the roots of our own desires. When freedom exists, we can let our curiosity, drive and subconscious lead us in a direction that is going to be more productive than the prescriptions others have for us. Curiosity is the best educator.

Gender is a Dumb Word

As far as I am concerned people are fighting over the word’s definition for shitty cultural means.

Option 1. Gender is another word for sex. If so, there are two genders (with some rare ambiguous circumstances).

Option 2. Gender is your personal expression of anything you desire to express about yourself. If so, there are infinite genders.

Option 3. Gender is a means in which identity is innately created from one’s sex. If so, there are 0 genders.

There is no right answer here, only people being cultural imperialists who have no concept of how language and culture works. My suggestion, drop the word and ignore dumb people who wish to initiate conversation about it… or lob verbal bombs at them, whatever. Fuck every gender.

If anyone wants to tell me their gender in the comment section, I will give you a specialized “fuck you” accustomed to your personal gender.

Poisonous Narratives

Victim/predator narratives are highly saturated within Western culture. This isn’t only limited to feminists, SJWs, alt-right, BLM, trans-activists or anyone else. It is everywhere, including your mind and my mind.

We are all social creatures that subconsciously negotiate our place within our culture. Individuals with a strong ego and solid intellectual framework have an easier time combating these narratives, but it doesn’t eliminate them. We all still have to negotiate our place within our cultural framework, and we have to pick our battles.

Philosophically, I largely reject all victim/predator narratives when freedom of association exists. This is why I focus my philosophical vitriol at the coercive and non-voluntary aspects of our society (school, government, how people treat children). However, I still generally despise the victim mentality within coercive relationships. This is because the mentality/psychology of it offers nothing of benefit in our culture and for an individual. It leans into the coercion rather than attempting to maximize opportunity and individual choice.

Despite this philosophical framework, I live in a society that thinks very differently. My desire for a good life makes me pick my battles and I work around it. Even in my own mind, I have low expectations of “victim” groups.

We live in a society where a wife saying that they expect their working husband to change diapers is totally appropriate, but where a husband saying they expect anything of their stay at home wife is inappropriate (changing diapers, dinner done at a certain time, sex, clean clothes, etc). This isn’t just feminism in our society, it is the permeation of all victim/predator narratives. However, this is what I don’t like about a large segment of the identity politics on the right. They don’t desire to rid themselves of the poisonous narratives and move towards individualism … just to merely shift the players.

Growing up in this culture makes it so it is incredibly difficult for members of “victim” groups to escape their incentives. There is always an easy scapegoat for any problems that exist and a whole community in place to reinforce your victimhood. These people won’t learn individual responsibility, and will generally spend their whole lives being a worthless leech onto others. The tyranny of low expectations will crush their ability to offer significant value.

Logical Fallacies That Aren’t

I see the most logical fallacies in debate and discussion when people are trying to point out logical fallacies. This is because people like to use logical fallacies as a weapon without having any real fundamental understanding of what a logical fallacy is. I will give some examples.

“You are an idiot.”

This is not an ad hominem. This is an insult. When you claim that someone is using a logical fallacy when someone insults you, you sir are the only one using a logical fallacy. This is an example of a real ad hominem: “You are wrong because you are an idiot.”

“Expert X says experty stuff.”

This is not a logical fallacy. He might have really said experty stuff. No fallacious statement or line of reasoning was made. This can be annoying since they are often trying to paint you as dumb by trying to bring people who hold more expertise into the discussion to paint you as ignorant, but it isn’t a logical fallacy. This would be the logical fallacy of appealing to authority: “You are wrong because Expert X disagrees with you.”

“I believe humans naturally are social creatures.”

This is not a logical fallacy. The fact that someone brings up nature doesn’t mean that they are committing the logical fallacy of appealing to nature. This is how someone is performing the naturalistic fallacy: “You are wrong because humans are naturally social.”

I can make this list quite long. Usually, if you refrain from truth claims, you aren’t making a logical fallacy. “I believe X, Y, and Z” can’t be a logical fallacy. Even, “I believe X, due to Y, because Z” can’t be a logical fallacy even if what you are saying is, “I believe in monkey dishwasher due to purple, because ice cream has no bones.” That is weird, and it might be horrible reasoning … but it isn’t a logical fallacy.

Many oft quoted fallacies aren’t real fallacies and no one should call them such. If you go to “yourlogicalfallacyis.com” you will see many non-logical fallacies included. This list probably doesn’t do any great benefit to others and more likely just mis-educates.

Here are some examples that are included in this website.

Tu Quoque. This is when someone doesn’t answer your question and they instead ask their own question. That isn’t a fallacy, and in many contexts it isn’t dishonest or anything else problematic. Who ever included this on a list of fallacies is wrong because they are dumb ^_^.

Loaded question. WTF? Why would someone say this is a logical fallacy? There is nothing fallacious about a loaded question. It might be jerky, but in no way is it a fallacy.

Burden of Proof. Anyone who says anyone has a burden of proof is making a fallacious statement. This website says that someone who makes a claim has a burden of proof. That is untrue and fallacious. Just because you make a claim does not mean that it is assumed by the universe that you must prove it. You can say something, and move on with your day. It might be wrong, it might be right, but there is no burden of proof on anyone. This isn’t a logical fallacy.

Ambiguity. I am not very deep in this list, and this website is really shitting the bed. Now it is saying that if you are ambiguous in order to deceive that is a logical fallacy. No it isn’t. It is just being a fucking weasel.

Anecdotal. Anecdotes are fine. Sometimes an anecdote can prove or disprove something in a narrow context. If someone says, no one can stand on one foot, you reply, “I know that is not true because I saw a guy do it once.” If that is true, that is actually a very strong argument that disproves his statement. Anecdotes can often be problematic when grossly over generalizing one experience into the rest of reality. No matter what though … it surely isn’t a fallacy.

The Texas Sharpshooter. This is just picking specific data that supports your point. It isn’t a logical fallacy. It’s unreliable and lame, but not a fallacy.

There are other fallacies that people also misinterpret. The difference will often be whether or not there is a truth claim. The “Middle ground fallacy” is only a real fallacy if someone claims that the truth is in the middle. Otherwise, it might just be someone trying to compromise.

It feels so powerful to claim someone is committing a logical fallacy, but if you do it wrong, you might be the only one who is, and look like a giant dummy.

Teachers Are Like Cops

Teachers are like cops. If you do exactly what they say and convince yourself that they know better than you … you might think they are good people doing a good thing.

Once you choose not to live under the thumb of other people, the people who wish to bully you will show themselves to be bullies.

Its interesting to talk to some people who have had good experience with teachers and for them to think it was the teacher that was good rather than their demeanor which showed reverence to the people who they were told to show reverence to. I don’t think it is a fluke that over 90% of my teachers were horrible, and over 90% of your teachers were wonderful. I think we had the same sort of people as teachers.

Cops can be nice guys if you are sucking their dick and fawning on them … but if you want self respect, cops will generally be assholes.

Once again though …. it is not that teachers and cops are morally evil and these evil people get attracted to these professions. It is the incentives of the work. There is little market response to poor customer service, there is an immediate perception of obedience from bullying, these professions unionize and protect their worst components, we have a society that feeds reverence to people who haven’t earned it, parents and students have little tools to help against a bully, teachers are incentivized to encourage obedience more than creativity, intelligence, etc.

A brilliant student who gets bored and becomes a distraction is a problem for a teacher … a dim student who is quiet will feed the teachers goals. As long as teachers are incentivized so insanely poorly, the system turns them into bullies.

The Challenge to Decentralist Ideology

A large contingency of people consider the state/government to be the enforcer and protectorate of a society’s values. This might be the largest obstacle decentralists (like myself) have in espousing and explaining a decentralist ideology and sentiment.

One of the reasons this is so hard is because people don’t even consciously know they are doing it. If I were to say, “screw the US government”, people wouldn’t merely be hearing anti-government sentiments, they would be hearing that I hate baseball, apple pie, liberty and whatever other positive cultural values they subconsciously intertwine within the state (which is most of them).

Not only this, with the more extreme cultural imperialists (progressives, religious/cultural right) my cynicism towards government control/power is a direct challenge to their means of obtaining their future utopia (I would include the alt-right in the sentiment of cultural imperialists, however, they view the current government to be too far away from heir current interests to be overly offended by anti-government rhetoric). All forms of cultural imperialism is merely engaging in Utopianism by means (if necessary, and they would be necessary) of extreme violence.

In order for someone to embrace cultural decentralism someone doesn’t have to give up on the values and culture they have or desire. They merely have to give up on forcing their desires onto others. However, we grow up in the centralized institution of school and graduate into the centralized control of the state. It is hard for people to give up on fighting for central control/power. The level of intellectual sophistication it takes for someone to understand the incentives of a system they don’t exist under is very difficult. On top of this, we evolved from tribes and our brains are inclined to consider the state to be our tribe.

At the end of the day, I don’t believe decentralism wins by changing minds and hearts. It merely succeeds from the collapse of centralism. Resources and people flow to the most prosperous regions, and those will be the ones that are most decentralized.

Nay Impossible to Understand the Middle East Fiasco

I believe little of what comes out of the Middle East. This isn’t because I take anyone’s side, but because the natives have such a small amount of influence relative to the other powers that be. So many conflicting interests are concentrated in areas with such a messed up economy and competing native interests that is is almost impossible for a casual observer to understand the complexities of the issue.

Imagine if two groups of junior high kids were going to have a fight over who gets to sit at the blue table with the cool cup holders. However, two major teams in MMA found that the results of their fight was in their interests in ways that had no relation to the interests of the junior high kids. So they join each side in the conflict as allies, in a way, but with vastly different goals. As the fight occurs, other MMA teams get recruited by the original MMA teams with totally different interests … and some rich bankers buy off various middle schoolers to switch sides or employ new junior high kids to join the match. Then the local gun store gives them all guns as free samples, so they will buy more later. That is what happens in the Middle East. What is this fight about? That is an insanely complex question, but definitely it isn’t about who gets to sit at the blue table.

Who gassed the people in Syria and why? I don’t know, but, of course, everyone will claim it was the people who were against their interests.

My suggestion to people is not to try to figure it all out. My suggestion is just to get the MMA guys out of the junior high fight over the blue table. We should’ve let them work their own shit out … now the middle school is destroyed, and there are no good answers for anything.

The Alt-Right Has No Future in the US

Racial politics in Europe on the right are having a rise in the US in the last several years, in the form of the alt-right. However, I believe this will not be a very strong movement in the future like some people believe.

Us vs. them politics has always been a thing everywhere in the world. It is a part of human nature. However, the racial politics of Europe align well with a historical national, racial and cultural heritage. A heritage that still exists after centuries of existence.

Who is “us” in France? People of French race, cultural heritage/legacy, and language. Who is “them” in France? People who are not racially or culturally French.

This idea has no translation to the US. The “melting pot” of the past has mixed cultural legacies and racial identities into the zeitgeist of being a cultural American. What is left is an “us” that merely contains broad ideas, sharing of circumstance, and a shared language. Who is “them”? People who attack the US, doesn’t desire to be in the “melting pot”/rejects the tribe, and don’t adopt the language. This is why Mexican illegal immigrants are the focus of the people who think in “us” vs. “them” terms … they don’t seem to adopt the American identity/tribe.

We (people in America) know too many like minded people and generally decent people who are of many different races and cultural legacies who are heavily integrated into the culture. Too many of us “has a friend who is black” to largely adopt the racial political beliefs of Europe.

I don’t think this makes the US better since I don’t consider diversity or multiculturalism virtues (nor do I consider them vices). It just means that the circumstances are too different to reconstruct similar political dynamics.

The alt-right is a reaction to the identity politics of the left and they are using the European playbook since there is no American playbooks for identity rightist politics in the way they are searching for. The alt-right might grow, but their ideas will never be as prominent in the US as they are in Europe.

Police Culture Poisons the Individual

Whenever I hear speaking on the moral/ethical nature of police, or even judge them by being generally decent or indecent people, I never hear a standard of judgement. Most of the time, criticism/compliments are fluffy, collectivist and/or ambiguous to such a degree that no conversation is possible. This is also true of teachers, politicians and many other symbols/figures of authority … but we will stick to police for now.

What qualities distinguish a good police officer from a bad one?

  • an unbiasedly upholding of the law
  • a demeanor of respect and honor
  • standing up for truth and the values he vows to uphold
  • a strong moral compass that underlies his motivations for being a police officer
  • a desire to help people.

I think this is a standard most people would agree to relatively easily. With this standard set, let us set up a couple of hypothetical scenario to test these qualities.

1. A cop sees a man speeding through traffic. He pulls him over with the intent to give him a ticket. When he pulls him over he realizes the man is a fellow police officer. Does he give him a ticket?

If he does not, he is not unbiasedly upholding the law and he lacks a strong moral compass. He is engaging in corruption and he is a bad/corrupt cop.

2. Two cops pull up to a group of teenagers. They aren’t causing harm, but they are being active and dressing a bit out of the norm. No laws are being broken. One cop rolls down the window to angrily look at the kids and tells them, “We are watching you. We don’t tolerate hoodlums in the area, and we are itching for a chance to take in some thugs.” What does the other guy do?

If he doesn’t stop the cop from talking to law abiding citizens with such derision and report him, he is a bad cop for not standing up for unbiased standards, and a demeanor of respect and honor.

3. One cop find out that another cop was inaccurate on filing a report. Does he take steps to correct his actions?

If the answer is no, he is violating every established standard.

4. A cop has a strong moral code and has to enforce a law he believes is immoral. What does he do?

The laws police must enforce violate every moral standard when you look at them individually. In order for them to remain cops they must enforce them in violation of their own morality.

This is why all cops are bad cops.

Every cop is put into these scenarios every day. Every cop will admit to be putting into these sorts of scenarios every day. However, while every cop won’t admit to handling them unethically, they will side step the issue and obfuscate their duty.

While a good guy could become a cop, the culture poisons the individual. The incentives of government, monopolies, unions and feeling camaraderie with others in the same culture all concentrate themselves into a situation that cops must be immoral and indecent to remain cops. If you try to be a good cop, the best possible scenario is that you will be fired … often it would be quite a bit worse.