I am a proud owner of the Quotable Hitchens, a great book of impressively produced quotes by Hitchens throughout his career. In the modern day efforts of reactionary Social Justice Warriors, from GamerGate, to Dr. Taylor's "offensive and ostracizing" shit, to "metalheads are what's wrong with metal", the term "personal is political" is thrown around as easily as the term "misogyny".
Before I get into the Hitchens' quotes, something I will do leading up to his death day, I want to give a solid example of how "the personal is political" is about feelings and devoid of reason. Faggot. That word is used extensively. Originally used to describe a tightly bound bundle of sticks (sometimes for the purpose of fire building), the stick/dick rhyme and stick-on-stick imagery was applied to homosexual men. Well, almost exclusively in American; but in the United Kingdom, the term fag was derived more to the burning element of the original description and applied to cigarettes. Faggot is currently viewed as a derogatory word against homosexuals, and some argue that the flippant use of it in online spaces and in school yards between men only reinforce the negative and denigrating connotation of the word.
This, however, shows how some do not recognize how words and language evolve. Otherwise meaningless words can be changed into hurtful ones while intentionally harmful words can be co-opted and "taken back" into positive ones. Ratchet, the helpful tool, is also used as a slur against "ghetto women" who believe they are "every man's eye candy", and is applied to any woman who acts in a similar manner. On the other side, the word queer was used as a disparaging term against homosexuals of both genders, but was re-purposed by the LGBTQ community as a word that, to them, carry no harm. Words and their meanings are somewhat flexible--we won't be swapping the meaning of verbs any time soon, but certain nouns can take on or lose given meanings and, in some cases, turned into verbs themselves.
Back to faggot, though. It is a favourite word of those in online spaces, particularly image boards (e.g., 8chan). The usage there has nothing to do with sexual orientation but to do with ones usefulness to the conversation. Acting in a meaningless way, not thinking for one's self, or intentionally attempting to block or disrupt a conversation will result in being called a faggot. Here's Louis C.K.'s take on the word:
Again, in the context that Louis C.K. is talking about, faggot has nothing to do with sexuality or sexual orientation. It is a word used to point out a person who is acting in a weak, pedantic, whiny, cowardly, or any otherwise annoying manner--again, nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Enter SJWs: because there are homosexuals who feel the word faggot is a slur against them, they make that personal element political. This action directly leads to attempts to censor the use of the word in nearly every context. We are seeing that in the recent issue regarding metal (genre of music): The Problem With Heavy Metal Is Metalheads: Stop Calling Everyone A Faggot.
Here are Hitchens's thoughts on the "personal is political".
"The idea that 'the personal is political'--and idea that emerged in an era of post-1960s depoliticization--has come to mean that personal identity or preference is a sufficient political commitment." - "Missionary Positions", Wilson Quarterly, Winter 1991
"In the meanwhile, of course, the political has conversely become personalized with the result that public affairs are dominated by celebrity-style posturing." - "Radical Pique, Vanity Fair, February 1994
"I remember very well the first time I heard the saying 'The Personal is Political'. It began as a sort of reaction to the defeats and downturns that followed 1968: a consolation prize, as you might say, for people who had missed that year. I knew in my bones that a truly Bad Idea had entered the discourse. Nor was I wrong. People began to stand up at meetings and orate about how they felt, not about what or how they thought, and about who they were rather than what (if anything) they had done or stood for. It became the replication in even less interesting form of narcissism of the small difference, because each identity group begat its subgroups and 'specificities'." - Letters to a Young Contrarian, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 112-113
"From now on, it would be enough to be a member of a sex of gender, or epidermal subdivision, or even erotic 'preference', to qualify as a revolutionary. In order to begin a speech or to ask a question from the floor, all that would be necessary by way of preface would be the words: 'Speaking as a ...' Then could follow any self-loving description." Hitch-22, (New York: Twelve, 2010), 121
In my previous post, I wrote a rapid reply to the Ra Men Podcast and Mr. James Croft of St. Louis Ethical Society. The particular podcast can be found here. In brief, Aron and Mark spoke with four members of the Ferguson community on the issues surrounding the murder of Mr. Michael Brown and grand jury's choice not to indict Officer Darren Wilson. Most of the discussion was focused on variations of "oppression" suffered by only blacks (ignoring the 28% white population in Ferguson) at the hands of only whites. There were no solutions offered by the two individuals who identified themselves as "community leaders".
I pointed this out in a reply to the video and again to Mr. Croft on Twitter. I like to believe I take a Stoic's approach when entering online discussions as an even temperament lends itself far more to discussion than trolling/flaming. In my responses specific to Mr. Croft, I focused on his rhetoric and ideas--those of "privilege" and of "white privilege". I am not someone who buys into the Social Privilege Theory. Rather, I feel it to be meaningless ravings done mostly by the people who fall into the highest tiers of privilege. Moreover, it is a pathetic escape tactic by the unintelligent, whereby they need only claim that one's "privilege" prevents them from understanding. Yes, because being a white man means I completely lack empathy and sympathy.
The Social Privilege Theory is frequently employed by Social Justice Warriors (SJWs). Now, within the SJW community it comes across as a powerful social factor, and the ability to explain privilege is considered enough to cause tectonic shifts in social policy. Outside of the SJW cult hall, calling out someone's privilege is an act of shaming in their eyes. Shaming, of course, is considered one of the pillars of bullying, along with threats, coercion, and force. For the SJW perspective, shaming is a fair play simply because one with privilege engages in invisible or unconscious shaming of those with less privilege. This is patently ridiculous on several levels.
Privilege does not exist in the terms held by these SJWs, who view it as a society wide issue. Certain individuals posses preferences, opinions, or beliefs that may view others as below or above them. That, however, does not mean everyone with a superficial similarity (e.g., skin colour, gender) also posses that identical preferences, opinions, or beliefs. The one privilege that does exist is wealth or financial privilege. Ironically (or not), the loudest voices claiming the damage caused by "white, heterosexual, cis-male privilege" come from those of wealth (e.g., Ms. Quinn, Ms. Sarkeesian, Mr. Mcintosh, Mr. Lifshitz, Mrs. Wu).
Now, I decided to write this little post because of my exchange with Mr. Croft. Here's the first part:
Mr. Croft appears to have been generous with his time and stated he both read and replied to my posting. This looked to be promising for me to have some discussion with his views contrasted with mine. Unfortunately, it was not to be the case. I immediately went to my page and see if there were any comments waiting moderation and to check my settings.
As shown here, my comments are open to anyone and never require moderation. I like discussion and feel that I can learn from being wrong. It came across as strange to me that the comment was lost. I originally gave Mr. Croft the benefit of doubt, and continued to ask for a response. At first the conversation came across as friendly:
I did not want to dismiss Mr. Croft. I continued to press for the reply in a friendly and open matter.
Here I remain open to discussion. I did not feel I targeted Mr. Croft on a personal level. Rather, that I focused on words he said, in context, and why his approach was not the best for improving the situation in Ferguson. I believe between the YouTube post and Post 21, I used about 400 words specifically to Mr. Croft, while the rest were either dedicated towards another individual, to the situation, or the my solutions. Again, I was seeking conversation on the matter and in a stoic manner; I argue the central points of people's arguments and avoid falling to weak ad hominem attacks.
The conclusion. I did not edit my post to cleanse it of any personal attacks. My post is how it was when Mr. Croft claimed to have read it. Still, I attempted to open to Mr. Croft for discussion. Then he reminded me of something: SJWs and their ilk are ideologues. So steeped in their rhetoric they are unable to discern the difference between criticism of ideas and criticism of their person. They shout aloud that you've "offended" (i.e., "denigrate", "disparage") them not as a means to correct the direction of the conversation by as a tactic to derail it entirely. There are no winners here and nothing for either parties to learn when this happens. It is an intellectually cowardly and dishonest act.
SJWs are trouble. We know this from #GamerGate, from Occupy Wall Street, and from the new Puritan policies coming into effect on college campuses. No person has a right to not be offended. It is the height of arrogance to think one particular group or person deserves special treatment or protection from such speech. Yet, SJWs forge ahead, drawing deeper and deeper lines between groups, dividing people up in unnecessary ways. When challenged, they cry foul because they were offended, and proceed to walk away in a false victory.
I have no doubt that Mr. Croft is an intelligent and passionate man. However, these actions I am seeing him engage are intellectually cowardly. If Mr. Croft does reply to this or Post 21, or if Blogger finds the lost post (if there was a post lose to begin with), I will happily redact and apologize for this paragraph. Until that time, however, I am left with another encounter with a person who claims offense at the mere criticism of his ideas in context. No rebuttal, no solutions.
This is a follow up response to my Twitter conversation with the Ra Men Podcast, Aron Ra, and James Croft.
Episode 11 of the Ra Men Podcast featured a different format: rather than the usual single guest interviewed by Aron, Mark, and/or Lilandra, Episode 11 included several members in a panel-style discussion on the recent happenings in Ferguson, MO. The podcast stayed within its normal hour long time, which likely limited the amount of in-depth discussion on particular issues in Ferguson. My qualm is not with format or the time limit, but instead with the rhetoric being stated by some of the guests.
Here's my statement I placed on the video comments:
The statement by Mr. Croft that "everyone else's experience is not the exactly the same as yours" being equated to a justification for the "indiscriminate slaughter" of a given minority was laughable. Vapid statements like these do nothing to work towards resolving the problems we are seeing in police forces around the United States. It is merely inflammatory rhetoric which has its genesis in the weak "social privilege" theory--a theory which is devoid of action.
I'm miffed about this episode. It is an important topic, but it was terribly mishandled. Aron, who usually demands clear, empirical evidence, bows to people who fall outside his "white privilege" (i.e., people who are higher up on the "progressive stack") and allows them to rail off anecdotal evidence unchallenged. Mrs. Crutchfield said her goal was to "fan the flames". Has she not considered that the "flames being fanned" might be detrimental to fixing this problem? In all of this, Mrs. Crutchfield came across as the most overtly racist with her generalized statements about white people. She comes across as lacking introspection and self awareness.
Let us employ Occam's Razor by asking which is more likely: (a) police officers are inherently racist, which is why they are more vicious towards blacks or other minorities, or (b) police officers are grossly under trained and lack interpersonal skills when it comes to conflict resolution, leading to excessive use of force at times. Both options are systemic problems and both can be corrected.
Thanks for discussing this; however, the quality of this particular episode was by far the worst thus far in terms in challenging material and insightful discussion.
Harsh rhetoric from myself, too. My goal with the above statement was to focus in on and dismantle the belief that righteous anger is a justified emotion to be held the the on-the-ground leaders. It cannot be stated enthusiastically enough: leaders must act with reason and purpose, not with anger or indignation. Emotions are fine at driving a person, but they must be left out of the decision making process. This was clearly evidenced in Mrs. Crutchfield's willingness to "fan the flames". Ferguson deserves leaders, not cheer teams.
When there is a lack of critical analysis on the leaders of any movement, leaders are left with a carte blanche for their messages and actions. Mrs. Crutchfield, who admitted she was on the ground daily in Ferguson, is doing a disservice to her community by allowing her anger with the situation to impair her judgement and also by allowing the personal to become political. In the podcast, Mrs. Crutchfield makes the flippant statement that she is afraid of white police officers pulling her over while driving. This does not equate racism in the police force; rather, that only shows one woman's (mostly unjustified) fear.
Mr. Croft also factors into this. He attempts to play the "white privilege" game, whereby he engages in the mental gymnastics of condemning whites (seems rather racist, to me) while disassociating himself from that group. The only thing he didn't do was whip himself. The "privilege" game is wasteful and absolutely ineffective simply because it makes the personal political. Why is that bad? It is a terrible idea because the call for change that comes from the personal being political will only be accepted if it precisely matches what the personal desires were in the first place. The best example of this is abortion rights for women: one side argued it was up to the individual to decide for herself while the other side state their god would be angered and thus that made them uncomfortable. Clear as mud!
Now, here are some reasons why anger is only a destructive force in Ferguson, and I'll do my best to not bring too much of the Stoics mindset into this. Allowing anger in justifies the destruction and violence we've seen so far. Moreover, that same anger propels people into accepting they are oppressed by tapping into their anger. A group of people who feel oppressed will fight back. It is a vicious cycle. The damage caused is extensive, of course. The price of business is extremely high when there is a reasonable chance for riots. Business insurance goes up, making the cost of running a business in Ferguson even more expensive. The surrounding land value drops due to the poor business prospects, which effectively drives out individuals and families who view their homes as investments. Fewer homeowners in Ferguson leads to a smaller tax collection by the city, which directly impacts the city's ability to finance basic infrastructure. As city programs grind to a halt, the city becomes even less desirable to remain in, ultimately driving out more people and acts to turn new comers away. This cycle continues until the city is forced to seek alternatives to make up the difference in operating budget. It cannot look to increasing property taxes in the city as the city has high unemployment, nor can it increase business taxes and fees (which furthers the difficulty for businesses).
Now, that is a grim picture I've illustrated. And I've done it in a way that is entirely devoid of a particular racial group. In other words, it can happen anywhere and to anyone. But this is the moment where we see the opportunity to change matters in Ferguson. We know the city has decided to use traffic tickets as a means of generating revenue. As such, a memo goes out to local police ordering them to be hypersensitive (no proof of this, of course, but it is a reasonable assumption) to all traffic violations. Political change on this point reshapes the relationship between the community and law enforcement; rather than threatening layoffs to police due to an impending lack of funding if those tickets aren't issued, police will be encouraged to work on building rapport in the community--to view the community as people rather than potential government revenue.
Again, I've laid this out without mentioning of race. Does a black man in Ferguson not have a job because he is black? Absolutely not. A black man in Ferguson doesn't have a job because there are not enough jobs in Ferguson. Understand that Ferguson is 67% black. For black men, 17.8% are unemployed. 28% of the black population lives under the poverty line. The opportunities to escape are limited by the lack of wealth, not because of people being a given race. Dedicating substantial financial efforts to build the economy of Ferguson, bringing jobs to the young men of Ferguson, will bring greater community peace. Why only young men? Giving those men purpose keeps them off of the streets, away from drugs, out of fights (or worse escalation), and focused on improving their chances and their families chances. More importantly, however, is they become role models for other young black men in the area.
Much of this might seem vapid, but I argue that is because of the inherent bias being brought in. I am not black. I am not American, either (although I do live in the United States now). My history is different. That does not mean I cannot bring reasonable solutions to the table, though. The greatest moral failing with the protesters' side of the Ferguson situation is their ridiculous attitudes on "privilege", which creates enemies out of allies and silences good ideas because of someone's skin colour. After all, if the fight is about racial equality (not tolerance), better treatment by (white) police of (black) citizens, then anyone's idea which addresses these problems and attempts to provide solutions ought to be considered.
One last point before closing: the problem within the police is separate to the problems in Ferguson (i.e., low employment, high poverty, no social mobility). Following Michael Brown's death, those two problems intersected at their most volatile. The police have many problems that I will not mention here, but will at some point. This purpose of this post was to lay out two simple facts: Ferguson has significant governmental and political problems which hurts the economy, and thus social mobility (i.e., "hope") and that relying on racist rhetoric (e.g., "white police officers are causing this") pushes away those who would otherwise be sympathetic to assisting in political change.
TL;DR: Jim can kill Internet Aristocrat, but he cannot kill his popularity. He spoke to you in his videos, which is what made him unique. He lost the hobby he loved to expectation. When he comes back, as Internet Aristocrat or another persona, he will be back because he has found again his love for his hobby.
Many notable people have voiced their responses to Internet Aristocrat's final statement to #GamerGate. I've listened to it a couple of times, reviewed the responses to him, and have drawn my own conclusions. Let's start on a couple important points about Jim. Jim likes to make videos. He considers it a hobby. On at least one earlier "lazy stream", Jim stated that he had several previous YouTube accounts that he made videos with, but later deleted, only to go on to make other accounts. Jim's Internet Aristocrat persona was merely his latest. I never followed Jim on any of his previous accounts, but I did come across his account after his first video on gangstalking. More on him as a person later, but I wanted to layout Jim's pattern of behavior thus far. Jim's Internet Aristocrat persona had its big jump following his series called the "Hugbox Chronicles". In these videos, posted 10 months before the "Gamers are Over" articles, Jim was already critical of the hugbox mentality and corruption among games journalists. In his "Mighty Number Nope" article, Jim lambastes games journalists and the social justice warrior movement for allowing blatant nepotism to take place. While most of us understand that nepotism is a poor business practice, many of us also understand that it--like many, many other human behaviors--is impossible to entirely stamp out. For me, this was the first instance of seeing Jim's adherence to a purest mindset. Nay I say, evidence that he too is an ideologue. There's really not much to what Jim said in his final response. First, he recognizes his #GamerGate videos, particularly the first of the series titled Five Guys, brought him much of his fame. We all remember how ruthless he was towards the people who had an obligation to be ethical--not to the moral shortcomings of the woman involved. Second, Jim criticized the movement for allowing pro-#GamerGate people to make money off of videos and articles related to #GamerGate. Third, he opines that the weakening of #GamerGate is due to too many moderates and people unwilling to just stay in flat out attack mode. Fourth, he states his intentions to keep his accounts down and to avoid becoming popular again in the future. Sargon of Akkad's response was as expected: a more moderate position that challenges Jim in two areas: fanaticism (although, Sargon never uses that word) and capitalism. Contrasting what Sargon said with what Jim said helps clarify what Jim's position really is: he wants rabid, Adderall focused, hate driven, anarchists to not just "attack" but to obliterate. Anything that can possibly take away from such hyper focused destruction will snowball and dismantle the entire swarm. Jim blames monetization because it takes away from the righteousness of the crusade. Moreover, his targeting of the moderates can be viewed as the softening of the extremes, which results in diminished vitriolic pressure. It is almost as if he condones any tactic that it takes to bring down the corruption; in other words, if it can't be persuaded to change, then it must be purged, something Sargon points out in his response. Jim has no desire to be popular. He knew he was the ultimate front man. He was interviewed on a live radio program early in #GamerGate and admitted he "lost his spaghetti." He made several videos on #GamerGate that helped clarify his position and the direction of where to attack. His relationship with Jayd3Fox only elevated his stature, as Jayd3 created the boycott goal of the day. Jim hosted several "lazy streams" where he discussed #GamerGate happenings via questions posed on Ask.fm, Twitter, and the Google Hangouts chat. He could pull in over 6,000 viewers to a mid-afternoon Tuesday stream. He was everything he never wanted to be: the front man. As such, this brought expectation on himself. People sought his advice on what to do next, to which he always responded with something along the lines of "keep on the offensive, do not get distracted with anything but the goal". Unfortunately, that wasn't enough for many of the minions. These minions needed it spelled out. They also wanted the next in the Hugbox Chronicles, the next Tumblrisms, the next #GamerGate video. This brings us to his choice to kill Internet Aristocrat. The pressure was on Jim to lead and create. He was only a man who had a hobby and an opinion. That's all he wanted to be. Some guy on the internet who made videos that made people laugh and think (well, kind of think). The thing about hobbies is that they lose the luster when they start to feel like work. Jim has a job (I believe he works at an architecture firm in Minnesota). His hobby was destroyed by his popularity, and he already knew this was possible, as it had already happened to him. He wants his hobby back, though, which is why he alluded to coming back with a new account in a couple of months. Which he will, and the internet will be better for it. Why? Jim's style was unique. Unlike many other people who post on YouTube, who give the sense they are talking to a camera, Jim had a way of making it feel like he was talking to you. That's the main reason why his streams were so popular--even though you were never talking to him, it felt like he was talking to you. His popularity from #GamerGate, Tumblrisms, and Hugbox Chronicles will stay with his mind and his voice. The next time he posts a new video, even if it is a 4 hour long love poem for Zoe Quinn, his popularity will return. The internet does not forget. My final thoughts, and the essential words I would like Jim to read if he ever comes across this: Internet Aristocrat was a fantastic persona, but he was only a persona. Jim is the passionate hobby man behind it. Jim's popularity will not die. For this reason, Jim should resurrect Internet Aristocrat. Not for #GamerGate or for his fans, but because it shows he understands that inevitable outcome of his contribution and impact. He needs to learn to block out the noise of demands, the shitposts, and the nobodies with opinions, simply because they will follow him where ever he ends up. Nevertheless, I raise a glass to Jim as I mourn the loss of Internet Aristocrat. Here's to the next attempt, Jim, and may you take back the hobby you so clearly love. (Post script: the @internet_arlsocrat Twitter account is not Jim. I think it might be @blackfacekermit.) This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi
"Healthism" is a bullshit statement made by people who are performing mental gymnastics to justify (mostly to themselves) that their empirically demonstrable unhealthy lifestyle has a negative impact on how they are viewed by others. It's another fancy buzzword thrown out into the blogosphere to deflect honest criticism (or maybe concern trolling) away from the issue at hand and transform it into everyone's favourite "oppression".
You feel that you are being "oppressed" because of "healthism"? Well, as a 157cm, 115kg woman, would you be able to perform the necessary duties as a member of a fire and rescue team? The only answer here is "no". Reason? The physical demands of such a job are outside of the scope of this theoretical individual. A mix of her physical composition and her gender results in a lack of cardiovascular capacity and markedly low strength. Is that "healthism"? Is she, as a fat woman, being "oppressed" because she cannot be part of a fire and rescue team? No. She is not.
"Health" is a bit of a nebulous concept. Many experts disagree on what constitutes good health. Consider that you could be continually stressed, get less than ideal amounts of rest, suffer from regular headaches, be unable to run 5 kilometers in less than an hour, have low back pain, and regularly have heartburn, but still be considered "healthy" because you have the correct body mass index (BMI)? Health is a multifaceted concept requiring a mix of empirical standards and personal goals.
Let's draw two examples to see what this means: me and our fictional lady mentioned above. I am 187cm, 84kg, male, and late 20s. This gives me a BMI of 24 (verging on overweight, even with my low body fat percentage). I run between 5 and 7 times a week, between 5km to 8km per session, plus lift weights for the purpose of strength building. I have Celiac Disease, which means I cannot eat gluten (found in wheat, barely, and rye). This greatly impacts my diet: I rarely eat out, I never eat fast food, and extremely high glycemic foods like bread do not factor into my diet at any point. In other words, I eat what most people would say to be very well. On average, I consume between 2400 calories and 3400 calories, with my maintenance calories set to 2850. Where the facade of my health comes apart is the Celiac Disease and a major back injury I sustained in March 2013 that required surgery. I continue to have rather significant nerve pain in my left leg as a result of that injury.
Our hypothetical woman, on the other hand, who weighs 115kg at 157cm (or has a BMI of 46), requires a different amount of calories. Being generous and saying the hypothetical woman has light activity, she would need about 2200 calories to maintain her body weight (and, thus, BMI). Now, 2200 calories is rather close to the daily recommended intake for most major countries' departments of health. However, there's the high and low end of intake to either increase or decrease body weight. For her to lose a kilo a week, she would be limited to 1500 calories (as a reference, that's a Big Mac, large fry, and a diet drink). Conversely, and the telling part of our lady's situation, for her to gain a kilo a week, she would need to consume 3600 calories a day! And, again, that's only a kilo a week. That volume of consumption is probably part of the reason why our late 20s hypothetical woman is the situation she is in. Let us say, though, that she does not have any ailments. She has a regular menstrual cycle, sleeps well, has no unexplained pains, chronic injuries, and does not yet have a metabolism disease.
Do we consider this woman to be of worse, equal, or better health than me? Of course there will be objections here: I'm comparing a man and a woman, I am taking a morbidly obese woman and comparing her to a fit man, or that I should consider what she things to be healthy. Unfortunately, all of those objections are moot. Being as overweight as this woman is is empirically shown to be unhealthy by several factors. While she does not have a metabolic disease yet, she is at extremely high risk of developing type II diabetes. Moreover, the stress on her joints from carrying around that excess weight will result in damage and wear at an earlier age, which effects both her longevity and her quality of life. She will be more likely to have reproductive issues, develop breast or uterine cancer, and to suffer from depression. This is a list of objectively unhealthy attributes linked to her body weight.
Now, the central backlash to the "healthism" bullshit is not actually based around being or not being healthy. Rather, it is focused on beauty. Beauty? Yes, a subjective judging of a person's attractiveness. The claim is that woman of any body size (mostly focused on the larger end) are all beautiful. There are two significant problems with this: firstly, beauty is entirely subjective. What I find attractive in my wife my best friend might not find as attractive. This subjective judging of beauty has many, many influencing factors, such as age, wealth, cultural values, desire for offspring, societal pressures, and spiritual importance. These elements determine an individual's personal preference for mate selection. Well, almost; look back at that list, there are two elements in that list which have little to do with societal or cultural pressures: offspring and age.
This is the second element of what comprises the subjectivity of beauty: interpretation of health. If a man has the desire for offspring at some point in his life, perceived health of a woman is going to greatly impact the man's subjective view of her beauty (in a similar way to how women while ovulating tend to find physically fit men far more attractive, but during menstruation and until next ovulation they find men with resources more attractive). For a man to judge a woman for her ability to provide offspring, the elements considered at things such as age (many woman over 35 will experience some difficulty with conception) and physical fitness. Physical fitness includes a perceived workload capability, adequate body fat for normal hormonal function, and observable secondary sexual characteristics. This is where a woman's shape comes into play: an "hour glass" figure conveys a powerful biological message that the woman is old enough to bare children, a rounded butt along with rounded hips indicates a healthy body weight, along with the size of the woman's breasts. Other factors go into this, too: shiny hair, smooth skin, good posture, and obvious grooming all convey the image of health in a reproductive sense.
When you take our hypothetical woman, where does she not meet the definition for beauty? Obviously the first factor is going to be the subjective preference. Personally, I do not find overweight women attractive, simply because overweight women were unable to keep up with my active lifestyle, and I want to share my life with my wife. Beyond that, what other areas does this woman fail to meet a basic sense of beauty? With her morbid obesity, it will be difficult to assess if she actually is able to bare children either in the present or in the future. Big women do not mean big hips, so this vital piece of information is lost. In fact, many of her secondary sexual characteristics are effected by her body mass, thus causing issues in the processing of her beauty. Simply put, because it is difficult to determine her health, the subjective viewing of this woman's beauty is diminished, unless the viewer has an a priori preference for larger women.
"Healthism" is not anything people should be attempting to understand or fit into their vocabulary. It is a non-event involving people who would rather change the world around them than change themselves. For myself, I never had any desire to go tell all women the world over that beards are sexy on men and if a woman didn't think a beard was sexy she was a "beardist". I recognized that I would either have to shave my beard to attract certain women or I would have to find women who found my beard attractive. It was incumbent upon me to make my situation work, not on the world to adjust to what I wanted. And this is where "healthism" fails. The empirically researched ailments that are linked to obesity are many. This allows the majority of people to say "obesity is unhealthy". If an obese person wishes to remain obese, that is entirely up to them; however, they must recognize there are long term and short term problems with obesity. Demanding the world change to meet your current situation is arrogant and foolish.
I'm going to be writing another short piece on KingofPol soon. Tonight, I want to blow shit up with friends in World of Tanks.
I do want to hash out one thing, however. In the wake of the KingofPol incident, the fallout was primary directed at what people were labeling "e-celebrity". These are people who aim to gain attention within an online space of (mostly) online individuals. There's a focus on elements such as Twitter followers, retweets, group friends, and blog views. This e-celeb mindset, of which KingofPol was claimed to have wanted, was called out as counter productive to #GamerGate.
So, I find myself on Twitter, attempting to follow whatever happenings there are, and I cannot seem to find anything. Why? Because there are no less than 5 people who have been clogging up my feed with ask.fm or similar answers. This is understandable when people are asking about important things (e.g., "when's the next video?", "thoughts on suchandsuch advertiser pulling out?"), but there is nothing by conversation which can only be described as talk to me online personality, I'm lonely.
Is that the ultimate undoing of #GamerGate? A couple dozen people who are too caught up answering stupid questions (yes, those exist) to anonymous people? Where has the intensity gone? Where has the rhetoric disappeared to?
Quit answering questions. Quit making yourself into an e-celebrity. It's a distraction. Want to blow off steam? Do a 60 minute stream, invite a few randoms on, shoot the shit, and then get back to your life. Do not get lost in the minutia of bullshit.
There is a problem with a central figure within #GamerGate. The loss of his credibility will result in a cascade of doubts on previous information.
KingofPol (Pol) brought out two major pieces of information regarding #GamerGate: the Denton leak and the pro-GG Secret Skype Group. Let's mince this quick.
Secret Skype Group
On Wednesday November 6, 2014, Pol started a live stream where he was attempting to "burn it all down" in regards to the credibility of several notable #GamerGate members because of their connection to the "Secret Skype Group" (SSG). The evidence displayed was circumstantial at best. Pol mostly incriminated individuals due to their being in the group and not based on whether or not they said or typed anything. Pol has no audio logs from any of the conversations, creating a major lack of evidence. Moreover, only 3 people were known to be contributing to split activity, none of whom are worth any effort to out as they are unimportant people (and I will not name them).
Pol's ferocity and bloodthirst was wholly unfounded. It was both predictable and strangely out of context. Pol had announced on Tuesday November 5, 2014, that he was done with #GamerGate, a tweet that is no longer there. Frederick Brennan of Infinite Chan openly mused to Pol that Pol had be bought out by outside groups to disengage from #GamerGate, something that is currently not proven (not dismissed, but can be placed out of our minds for now). For Pol to have had that live stream is questionable, something I will address after the Denton leak.
What's important to remember here is the circumstantial nature of the evidence, the lack of audio logs proving the SSG to be designed to serve the interests of only those in the group, that the SSG was not secret, but open, and allowed anyone to join, and Pol's mindset (more on that after the Denton leak).
The Nick Denton Leak, or the "Astrotrufing of #GamerGate" On Tuesday November 4, 2014, Pol released the image of a Facebook post by Nick Denton, claiming sources confirmed this to a be a legitimate posting by Denton. The post claims that Gawker Media's Denton hired individuals to infiltrate #GamerGate and engage in "tone policing" to cause infighting. thus slowing or derailing the movement. 19 hours later, Pol released a second tweet showing a follow up Facebook post by Denton which appears to address his original comment. Again, Pol claimed this information was vetted and verified.
Pol's stature and previous work has given him a great deal of leeway. Pol openly claimed that the information was passed on to Milo Yianopolous for vetting. Unfortunately, it appears Pol went ahead with the posting before verification from Milo came back. Looking at Twitter, the closest to verification we saw was Milo stating that the source provided to him by Pol was not the source he needed to verify the story. This is probably because of the information Pol had given: the original email with the original Denton leak came from on Rachael Morris (progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com), who claims to work at Gawker in an administrative role, and was passed the leak. She decided to share it with Pol. Interestingly, Pol's claim was that Kotaku Editor in Chief Stephen Totilo was the source. We can see the disconnect.
To my knowledge, Pol never released any text or audio evidence that he was having conversations with Totilo, stating he did not want to out his source. Curious, because sharing his name invites great speculation. Totilo as the source came out when Pol was talking to Brennan regarding the leak. There is very likely a record of private communication through the Twitter direct mail system if it is true that Totilo and Pol were talking. It could be the case, but that's rabbit hole talk at this moment.
What we can state at this point is there is no connection between the Rachael Morris and Totilo. The Rachael Morris here does not exist. "progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com" (at the time of the leak) is not a real email address. As Brennan points out in his lament against Pol, "Anything online can be forced, and online communication comes down to trust. Screenshots are easily forced using the developer tools in every browser."
What does it come down to?
So, who forged this information? Let's avoid the rabbit hole and focus in on whether or not it was forged by Pol. Occam's Razor can be employed here to see if Pol's leak was a creation of his own or a manipulation of his fatigued, theory hunting, crowd pleasing mind. In other words, did Pol want to gain something from this or was he tricked into believing it to be true?
The more probable answer is that Pol was a credulous fool. Using the SSG as an example, Pol likely linked nebulous statements made by Totilo (which I assume to be true that they were actually talking, but nothing concrete enough to share as Totilo to be the source, as Pol recognized that evidence would be torn apart) to the veracity of the Denton leak. The leak had bomb shell potential, clearly, and Pol was willing to stick his neck out and run it with the intent of a morale boost. An admirable move by Pol, alas it was for naught.
Pol has been heroic in his efforts to work on cultivating information for the expressed purpose of aiding #GamerGate, not because he wants fame or popularity. After all, Pol is a Registered Pysch Nurse in the mental health mess that is Florida. The money he earns from his online notoriety is insignificant to his income as a healthcare professional. Pol is entirely transparent with his online income and does donate it based on what his viewers want. Remember this when you are considering how to view Pol in the future.
How we should deal with Pol
Pol made two significant mistakes in two days. The Denton leak did not pan out. The stress from that knowing his reputation would take a hit is difficult for many of us to understand. Pronouncements of "not giving a fuck" does not negate that stress. Pol followed up by what can only be called lashing out at the community in a paranoid schizophrenic manner.
Ultimately, it was a mistake, compounded by his actions the following day. Pol has damaged his image within the community. Please take note of this. He is not, however, broken or unforgivable. He must be forgiven because he is a vital source of energy when it comes to digging. The overwhelming majority of #GamerGate is too goddamn lazy to send a daily email, let alone pressure sources for information. Pol is that warrior. Let us not cast him out for what he has done.
I think Pol was played. That's another post though. Pol had a lapse in judgement. We as a community should continue to listen to Pol, but with a clear warning: we want thorough verification before we trust again. Sources of Pol should note this. If you are sharing information with Pol, understand that you will be outed as a means of verification for the information being leaked. Anything less will not due now. Remember #GamerGate, trust but verify.
A personal message to KingofPol
It does not hurt me either way if I am wrong in my assessment of you. You understand how groups and minds can be manipulated with your psych and history background. If you willfully manufactured anything, you hurt the movement exponentially more than your hurt yourself. I believe you understand this and that is why I believe you did not. I would like clarification, though. Transparency is our battle cry and we must all adhere to it.
Yesterday I wrote on KingofPol's Nick Denton leak. Like the good people of #GamerGate, we don't "listen and believe", we "TRUST BUT VERIFY".
Fredrick Brennan, creator of Infinite Chan and close friend with KingofPol, had a conversation with KingofPol regarding the Denton leak. In the Skype logs, Pol claims his source for the information is Editor in Chief of Kotaku Stephen Totilo. Fredrick took what Pol was willing to share to Milo Yianopolous for verification.
Well, it didn't look good. Milo was unable to verify the provided information to him from Pol.
Fredrick pressed Pol for a clear and obvious source for the leak. Pol refused until Fredrick threaten a blog post (the one this information is derived from) outing him as a liar. Eventually, Pol shared the email he received from the source. Turns out, it wasn't Totilo. It was from a person with the name Rachael Morris, using the email address "progg.gawkeremployee@gmail.com"
Fredrick attempted to contact this person via the email, but received a SMTP error (i.e., email doesn't exist). I wouldn't try it now, simply because some shill will have created it.
This is most likely manufactured. While it is still possible that it is real, it is most likely pointing to false. The question now follows: who manufactured it? There are three possibilities.
1. Pol manufactured this. Many reasons as to why he would did this, including self promotion. What purpose does this serve? He could have done it to create a morale boost.
2. It was manufactured by someone close to him, knowing his current state. For those of you who don't know, Pol is a psych nurse that does shift work. As I write this, he's currently working an overnight. Pol's full burn over the last several weeks on #GamerGate, plus full time work, several side projects, and getting work outs in (including selfies) leaves a man without much energy, potentially compromising his otherwise strong mental faculties.
3. Pol's personality and countless hours spent on /pol/ has resulted in a mindset that appears to be learned but is actually credulous. Pol's willingness to believe, requiring a low threshold of veracity of evidence, has him chasing wisps. An example of this is the re-hashing of the secret Skype group I mentioned in my previous post, where he believes the secret Skype groups of people are all going to be for nefarious purposes.
I personally believe it is a mix between 2 and 3. What makes his situation worse is he is being called out for this and he won't just let it go so he can take a break. He needs distance from this. He's being played by people from all sides. I'm not going to be one of them.
Pol did not lie, as he felt his information was true. To lie is to knowingly convey misinformation with the purpose to deceive. Pol was tricked, believed the information wholly, and attempted to play flag bearer of #GamerGate once again with what could have been a major story. It is clear there are people out there who are attempting to de-base Pol with these tactics. It's expected at this point.
I would like the opportunity to speak with Pol privately about this to see if my analysis is true. Unfortunately, Pol will most likely be more guarded over the coming several days as he's removed himself from #GamerGate because of his belief of shill/nefarious secret Skype groups.
Last point: do not lose your faith in Pol. We know people have doxxed him. We know he's a target. Those who are brave will support him.
That was major information. Here's a few points that need to be remembered before we draw too many conclusions.
First, Pol is a major "red pill" theorist. His analysis of situations is sharped by this. This method has its merits, but it can be shots in the dark, too.
There are many individuals named in this stream as being part of secret Skype groups. Some of these people had nefarious intentions, which were absolutely clear based on the chat logs. Note: there is no audio records of these groups, only the text from chat. Individuals in these groups have a variety of reasons for being there, such as being vocal on Twitter, YouTube, or other sites. Others are there because they focused on their own needs. It really doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter who is who. Why? Because there is a need to focus on two things: being transparent and continuing to email. Do not conflate individuals' statuses in a faceless consumer revolt with leaders. Some of these people are looking for an opportunity for themselves within or as a result of #GamerGate. That's fine. But be honest about it. If you aren't, you become the same monster that we are fighting right now. Do no replace a broken system with an equally broken system filled with equally corrupt people.
As always, I trust Pol. He had special access to these groups because the organizers believed Pol to be discrete with secret groups. That was a terrible error on those organizer's behalf. Truth minded people like myself, Pol, Internet Aristocrat, Sargon of Akkad, and RogueStar will let our friends burn if it means the vital truth comes out.
It comes down to this: we are a mass of individuals who are unfathomably diverse. We will not all get along. We can focus our energies on good things, like emailing, tweeting, and driving the conversation about the unethical nature of games media and those who slander gamers as a whole. Or bad things, like tearing each other apart for tangential connections to others who have bad intentions.
Pol did the right thing exposing. He was wrong to conflate participation in a group with agreeing with nefarious or "shill" intentions. Pol joined Sargon of Akkad's stream following the completion of his stream to confront both MundaneMatt and RogueStar on MundaneMatt's connections to these groups and the groups desire to attack RogueStar. To be blunt, Pol was a mess. He was all over the place, irritable, and cemented in his interpretation of data, making him unable to listen to RogueStar's statement that there is nothing to see here in regards to him and MundaneMatt. Pol apologized via Twitter to MundaneMatt personally and to #GamerGate as a whole for his actions.
Pol was right to share. Pol could have shared it better.
Now get back to those emails! Blizzard re: Polygon.
Small post regarding Arthur Chu (@arthur_affect), Jeopardy champion and blogger with The Daily Beast.
Chu has inserted himself into #GamerGate simply because he is smart enough to recognize the publicity an established blogger can gain. #GamerGate continues to forge ahead, creating headlines. Bloggers ingest those happenings to turn a dollar for themselves. Good on them for finding a market to do that in, but understand that does not make them an important figure, either pro- or anti-#GamerGate.
Chu is a publicity parasite. He does not understand what #GamerGate is, only what his editor wants the narrative to be. That's why when challenged by David Pakman on The David Pakman Show on why someone like Quinn is important when only the opposition to #GamerGate is talking about her, Chu responded poorly by continuing to talk about Quinn and not why she is only discussed by the anti-#GamerGate position. Why did he do this? He's only smart enough, which doesn't make him smart. Sure, he has a trivia brain, but that doesn't mean he's smart.
Chu isn't worth the number of words I've already laid out here. He wants his name used so people come to his blog. Whether #GamerGate is successful or not, Chu does not care. It's a story generating headlines that he gets to write about.
Some thoughts on how #GamerGate looks in its third month.
There's some questions about whether the Nick Dentor "leak" is legitimate. The "leak" is a Facebook post from Dentor where he claims to have hired freelance individuals to join the #GamerGate movement and obstruct their efforts. Specifically, to work on the same level as the GamerGate harassment patrol and engage in "tone policing". In other words, to claim to be on the same side but take the attention and outward momentum and turn it inwards, creating needless infighting. There are two issues here: first, why would Denton let something like this "leak"? Certainly Denton is not stupid, knowing posting something of this nature on social media would leave it vulnerable to getting out. Denton is aware his social circle is not entirely homogeneous and there might be a person who might have shared it. This analysis makes this leak appear dubious at best.
Second involves #GamerGate's contribution. #GamerGate mind discussed this possibility weeks ago. Following the Anita Sarkeesian Utah State University death threat and false link to #GamerGate, the group mobilized to create a robust anti-harassment patrol which would seek out and take down accounts of individuals who engaged in harassment, whether they were pro- or anti-GamerGate. I was among the minds that brought this scenario ahead; in short, I mused there would be a vulnerability which comes from an open movement that begins to police or regulate itself. People who are against the movement can dawn the colours of the movement and start disrupting the execution of the group. That being stated, you can take it as a brief experiment: there is no effort to derail #GamerGate is our hypothesis. We then observe an influx of tone policing. In-fighting begins. Trace accounts back to newly created people with no history. Evidence shows people popping into existence that join, tone police, and disrupt the efforts by creating infighting. Conclusions can be drawn from the evidence.
The gap exists now between these people and the Denton "leak". Let me be clear: I despise "listen and believe" but I adhere to "trust and verify". That said, I trust KingofPol entirely and believe he puts the truth above all other things, including his image (e.g., interesting claims about the number of Jews killed in The Holocaust, something I haven't looked into myself). This image has emerged in the last 16 hours: (THIS HAS BEEN DEBUNKED, READ BELOW)
This image was given leaked to the Twitterverse and taken up by #GamerGate as evidence of freelance payment from Gawker Media (i.e., Denton) for undisclosed work. It's obvious there are many missing key pieces of information here, such as the work performed or the job title. Where the story changes is entirely thanks to The Ralph Retort:
A few interesting points here: why so many likes? Does Denton have bots on his friends list that like everything he says? This is not what most people would consider a "likable post". I question this simply because of how the entire comments are removed, rather than just the commentor's names and pictures. Curious, but I do not have the ability to discredit this or the original post beyond simple conjecture.
So, GamerGate predicts this happening. It happens. It is sourced, even if there are some questionable elements and a couple of small gaps. Is this not enough to focus #GamerGate on what is really going on? This isn't just about minor infractions of friendships and positive press. This isn't only about rigged awards for indie devs. This is about how media puts itself above the people who consume it, using that arrogance to push agendas and narratives which do not represent, at best, or slander, at worst, the consumers.
We are the consumers. If we walk, the industry dies. We are the ones with the power. Let media outlets know that. Keep emailing. Keep focused. Together, #GamerGate will enact the changes we desire, leaving smoldering wrecks of organizations that disregarded their consumers.
This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi
Here's the edits now:
Yes, the bank statement image has been debunked. It's entirely bogus and a repeat attempt of another effort to make it appear Gawker is paying people to shitpost. To clarify, I never stated it to be taken as truth, just that people were using it as evidence. I had my doubts because, as I stated, there is no information giving context to that payment. No context, no trust.
Thank you to those who let me know it had been debunked.
What an image, right? #GamerGate continues on into its well earned third month. There's been too many happenings to chronicle here. I saw this image and wanted to get into the core issues which divide the pro- and anti-GamerGate folks.
Because misogyny is not even remotely attractive.
Why does this need to be said? The most active people I've been in communication with or have followed have flat out denounced such behaviour. GamerGate is, despite efforts to paint us otherwise, a rational movement. That rationality leads us to many places. One in particular is our view on other human beings: we're all equal. And we all deserve to be treated equally! Take #NotYourShield: it's not only about calling out SJWs who attempt to use someone's race/gender/orientation/ethnicity/disability/whatever else as their own personal soap box, but about asking people to just treat people like goddamn humans. In a wheelchair like Hotwheels? You deserve to be treated like a human who has the ability to ask for help when you need it.
So, we all already agree on this. Why make a point about it? Should we talk about the sky being blue? Or that "coloured people" should not have to eat in different restaurants?
Because I believe games should be made in variety, not just for one demographic.
Again, there is no dispute here. No one wants only Call of Duty, or Halo, or Grand Theft Auto. We want variety. That's good! Nothing bad comes from that. This is another falsity that's being spun.
Look, when games topped out on graphics, devs relied on stories to set games apart. Xenogears, Final Fantasy III, Star Ocean, just a few examples of brilliant stories. Games want more stories where writers are free to put what they want in it. Don't police those stories. When you police the stories for their content, you destroy the story, thus destroying the game.
Because I recognize that a true fight against corruption in journalism does not involve the oppression or harassment of women and minorities.
Agreed. Another point we share. We encourage everyone to use their voice. Sometimes being loud brings negative attention. That needs to be ignored. Both sides would benefit from this. GamerGate wants more voices and gains nothing from silencing people. GamerGate believes its message is stronger, thus it doesn't need to silence others with poor tactics.
Because I believe in equality.
So do we. I'm noticing a trend here. We aren't that different, after all.
Because I done my research to locate verifiable, reliable, information on the topic.
Which, I assume, has brought you to GamerGate's side? Unless it's a personal belief that ethics in the second largest entertainment industry in North America doesn't matter. How does this position stand up to the verified evidence brought forth by GamerGate? I bet it doesn't last.
Because the individual is the smallest minority.
But when those individuals see a problem and band together to solve it, they become greater than the sum of their parts. They are fighting for something more than just ethics. They are fighting for their identity.
This is asswipe propaganda, meant only to feed those who already "believe". GamerGate created Vivian James as a face because she cannot shill, go on live television and speak, be doxxed, be harassed, or be strawmanned. Vivian signifies resilience against the faces of unethical practices, those who go onto television to absorb the media, not fight for something.
You can "listen and believe" when it comes to these topics. That's fine. It's easier to do that. To become the "good" so you can rail against the "evil" or "bad" them. Instead of "listen and believe", let's "trust and verify": take what people say and question it for its veracity. Ask questions. It only makes you a better person.
In the end, we're not too different, anti and pro. We do want the same things. We just see different paths to get there. Maybe we should do more working together to show this is possible without slandering the consumers of the material.
Many people will look at this in the context of the "rape epidemic" that is plaguing college campuses around the nation. The "Yes Means Yes" bill only looks at how sexual conduct is managed on college campuses. Why only there? That's because it has a whole other system to use to enforce it--all without due process!
Usual disclaimer: rape is a terrible crime and there are things that can be done to reduce to incidence rates of violent crime. I am not a rape apologist.
"Yes Means Yes" boils down to this: affirmative consent must be given by both parties throughout the sexual encounter to ensure both are aware and are willing participants. Consent cannot be given or accepted if either party is intoxicated or under the influence of narcotics. Two issues arise here: first, does every action require a "yes" and, second, how intoxicated is too intoxicated?
If one received the "yes" for breast touching at minute 2, does that still apply for minute 5? What about minute 10? 30? Post-completion? When does the affirmative consent end? It can be framed to only mean for that very moment to ensure it isn't used after coitus, but that means the participants would be seeking continual consent for every grope, kiss, or thrust. It places an undue burden on men to ensure consent, lest they fail to achieve it on a particular step, and are branded a rapist.
If a hook-up pair have consented to sex and everything leading up to it, and, while in the heat of the action, the male's member slips out and is accidentally inserted into the female rectum, will that be considered rape? This is a murky moment that will require a significant amount of thought before a conclusion can be made. The female never gave consent to be penetrated anally, but the male never wanted to penetrate the female anally. Does that absolve him of the accident? This uncomfortable but brief moment can become a ticking bomb for either party, but most for the male. I have great doubts that if a claim was brought against the male for forcible anal rape that he would be unable to defend himself adequately under Yes Means Yes. He would admit to the incident, state it was an accident, reassert the process of consent that was exchanged by both parties, only to finish on emphasizing that it was an accident. Under the kangaroo court system imposed by the Department of Education, whereby guilt is assumed, due process is thrown out, and the need for "beyond a reasonable doubt" has been replace by "preponderance of evidence", the male would likely be found guilty, as he admitted to commit the accidental act without consent.
In California, you may still operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of 0.08%. Driving is a significant engagement of perception and awareness. So, what is the "legal limit" for sex (on college campuses)? Taking this application to the logical conclusion, there will not be a way to prove a participant was either entirely sober or significantly intoxicated during the joke court proceedings many months down the line. As stated above, these proceedings are stacked against the accused (which are predominately men). It cannot be proven that consent was attained through the evening to all actions, that no lines were crossed, and that both were sober (enough?) to engage in the play. Alcohol impairs the judgement of both parties significantly enough that either side might lose sight of important body language, might skip a step in the affirmative consent dance, or may be unaware their 5AM date fell asleep for a moment during coitus.
Bills like these do not help solve the problem of sexual assault. Rather, they create a mine field of legal issues for those involved and for the colleges which they attend. The Department of Education's disregard for due process in show trails is only bolstered by such legislation. If we want to further reduce the diminishing number of sexual assault cases, then we need to do more to teach children about being assertive, how to interact with others, and how to read body language. We need to institute a lower legal drinking age, allow cheap and low alcohol content booze at all college parties (i.e., kegs), and discourage "pre-gaming" before college parties.
Convoluted laws based on bad statistics (1-5 women are not sexually assaulted during a 4-year college program) are failure as a community to address the issue of sexual assault. The rates of sexual assault are dropping, despite efforts by some groups to claim otherwise. Education into conduct and more reasonable approaches to consumption of intoxicants will be far more effective.
Notes: I was unable to find the bill's language around what "drunk" means. It merely referred to being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, having taken intoxicants, or being "drunk".
This video, brought to you by the religiously conservative Prager University, an online school for those looking to immerse themselves into conservative thinking, is presented by Peter Kreeft. He is a philosophy professor at Boston College and is a Christian apologetic.
Most people around me will look at this video and conclude God is more rational. Why? Well, two key points: the universe is far more complex than our human minds can comprehend and the universe must have a prime mover or first cause (as Kreeft puts it later in his video, "the Big Bang requires a Big Banger!") to have started this all. This is the rational position? Within the previous lines one can easily see inherent problems with those two points:
Complexity can be comprehended. It takes time and a well structured, rigorous, methodologically sound approach to tease apart billions of years of events to compile a sensible, reproducible explanation of everything. This point is known as the "God of the gaps"; God was the mover of clouds and the riser of the sun, then was the mover of the planets, then was creator of life, and now is only a "prime mover" to the creation of the universe. In other words, the more we know, the less reach God appears to have.
If the universe required a prime mover, and one has designated God as the prime mover, then what created God? If this is countered with a claim akin to God always being there, then why can't the universe have always been there in some form?
Let's parse out what Kreeft claims in this video.
"Logic can show there is a God." Kreeft goes on to claim the universe is covered in the finger prints of God, and refers us to 13th Century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas, who developed the prime mover or "unmoved mover".
"Just because scientists don't see a cause doesn't mean there isn't one." This was brought up in relation to radioactive decay, after Kreeft made the claim that "mere matter doesn't move itself".
Science will be unable to find the first cause. Kreeft crafts this from reasoning around finding the cause for radioactive decay, then finding the reason for the reason for radioactive decay, then finding the cause to the reason to the reason for radioactive decay, and so on.
Kreeft brings up a simple objection to the universe requiring a creator by posing the hypothetical question of "what if the universe is infinitely old?". Kreeft relies on scientists knowledge in this case to refute the possibility of an infinitely old universe, stating astrophysics believes the universe to have an age, which required a beginning to measure from.
If the universe exists, it came from nothing. Things that do not have to exist must have a cause. The Big Bang was the precipitating event (which, I assume, he attributes to God). Kreeft mocks atheism for previously made claims by atheists that the Big Bang was "creationism in disguise", where only moments earlier he makes a statement that "no scientists doubt the Big Bang occurred".
Kreeft invokes Einstein's theory of general relativity: "all time is relative to matter". Therefore, since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, that means that time only started 13.7 billion years ago.
Kreeft returns to mocking atheism by pointing out it is irrational to not believe in God but to believe in something like multiverse theory, which has no empirical evidence.
"The conclusion God exists does not require faith; atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God."
There are patterns we see in this brief video that one can acknowledge as being intentionally used to distract the viewer from thinking critically about either claims for God or the objections against atheism. Kreeft begins by dismissing science as able to find the first cause of anything, including this universe, but regularly invokes the wisdom and knowledge of science to support vapid points in favour of God as the creator. What's more, Kreeft mocks atheism for claims which it either never held or held so briefly due to the presentation of the evidence that a rational person can reduce Kreeft's mockeries to merely strawman attacks.
1. Logic can show there is a God.
No. It can't. If this video is an example of logic showing God, then you failed to convey that message in a sensible and understandable manner. Attempting to claim everything requires a first mover because of a philosopher from 800 years ago is akin to deriving navigational techniques for our space crafts from 13th Century ship captains. We have moved passed the position of a particular god being a mover of any sort in our lives, just as we have moved on from Zeus as being the cause for lightning.
2. Just because science don't see a cause doesn't mean there isn't one.
This is Kreeft painting science as inherently limited within the universe which God created. It's a good thing, however, that we do not exist in such a place, and, given enough time, the method of knowledge acquisition known as the scientific method will discover more about our origins than any religion has ever guessed.
3. Science will be unable to find a first cause.
This is a similar point to the one above, but this time with an example: radioactive decay. Kreeft, in effect, attempts to describe matter as some unknowable event where we can only peel away the superficial layers of mysteries. It is clear to me from the Wikipedia article on radioactive decay that we have a far greater understanding of radioactive decay than what Kreeft dishonestly conveys. Why does some matter decay? Unstable orbits! Why are some orbits unstable? Because of uneven chargers or orbital patterns or quantum tunneling or other events which weaken the strong nuclear force! The answer to the why question following this point is not "God"; the answer to "why do we have strong nuclear force" or any other event which might be responsible for radioactive decay must be looked at in a bottom-up manner (rather than the top-down, which invokes God as the answer): if these constants did not exist in this manner, we, as cognitive beings able to conjure images in our minds, would no exist, making any notion of God or universe moot. In other words, we are here because the conditions are such; not because the conditions were set as such for us.
4. What if the universe is infinitely old?
Such a question is a near fair one to ask when arguing against a person who believes God is the only answer to the universe. Given enough time, we can observe many remarkable things. This principle can be applied to our existence and that of the universe as well. Kreeft, however, dishonestly poses a strawman question. The real question is: what if matter is infinitely old? This is important for point 6. We do have strong theories around the Big Bang as the birth of our cosmos, even though there is some dissent from scientists, like Eric Lerner, on the viability of the Big Bang.
5. Nothing can come from nothing. The universe is something. The universe needs a reason to exist.
You can almost read that as "therefore... therefore... therefore...". First, let's look at the work of Lawrence M. Krauss. Krauss's theory is simply something can come from nothing without any supernatural involvement. This can be a bit confusing, though, as Krauss, an astrophysicist, uses nothing in a different manner as Kreeft, a philosopher. To what I have gleaned from Krauss's work, he believes matter has always existed, just in different iterations over their infinitely long existence. When matter is placed into a quantum vacuum, or "nothingness", it will behave in strange ways. Krauss does not attempt to explain where the laws of physics come from, as this can be a ploy to artificially apply top-down reasoning on a bottom-up problem. Philosophers had their place when it comes to the origins of the fields of study, including astronomy and astrophysics. Now, however, their time has passed, and the questions they ask about the origins of life without knowing biology or the origins of the universe without knowing astrophysics are clumsy and misguided. Philosophers who want to know why the laws are physics are such will continually apply the top-down reasoning fallacy to these questions. The laws are they way they are because matter exists and operates in this system. Change the laws, change the system, have an entirely different universe. This line of thinking is where the multiverse theory has found support.
6. General relativity's claim that time is a construct of matter; no matter existed until the Big Bang, which means time didn't exist until the Big Bang.
This point ties into points 3, 4, and 5. General relativity views matter as the important reference to existence. Time is measuring the change of matter. It can be taken, then, that without matter (i.e., existence) there can be no time. This is an ontological failing. Without matter, there would be nothing or there would something else. The mere fact that matter exists in this current system of laws means we, and other intelligent life, have the possibility of existing. Time, therefore, is only a relational mechanism to differentiate two points of existence, which can be employed by intelligent life. Time itself does not exist within matter. If matter has always existed, even prior to the Big Bang, then time too will have existed. This point does nothing to support the idea of God or a prime mover. God is not time. God is not matter. Existence, again, can be considered as a bottom-up problem: matter exists in its state because of the laws of physics make it so. The laws do not presuppose a creator of those laws, for if those laws were to change, our understanding of matter would change--or matter, and time, would cease to exist.
7. Multiverse theory has no empirical evidence, which makes it a joke that atheists believe in it!
Not exactly Kreefts words, but his mocking approach fails to convince me he had any other intent. Maybe it is because of thick irony which goes along with such a statement. One reason multiverse theory gains support from individuals (atheist or not; by the way, if one believes in an afterlife which is distinct from this plane of existence, then that person believes in a multiverse) is due to the feasibility of non-constant constants. That is, changing the laws of physics ever so slightly from how our universe operates may actually create another universe. There is metaphysics and the choice-based mutliverse theory, whereby each unique choice a conscious creature takes will immediately spawn another universe where everything is identical except the decision which was just made. Theories, indeed, but the plausibility is born out of an understanding of physics and a powerful imagination. God, on the other, comes from no understanding at all and a powerful imagination. There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, either, other than the evidence one can conjure through filling in the gaps of understanding or applying faulty logic to.
8. The conclusion God exists does not require faith; atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.
An open mind and patience does not require faith. If this were in the era of when Jesus was thought to have lived, we would not understand how disease is spread. This is not a strawman; rather, this is the point of science and acquiring knowledge about how the universe operates. Prior to the germ theory of disease, humans attributed illness to wrath of their local god. We now know the failings of this both by germ theory and by the inability of prayer or ritual to stem the damage of illness or disaster. This, again, is the God of the Gaps argument. God is an ever receding pocket of human knowledge about the universe. A time will come when humans will know the origin of life, with the ability to reproduce it. We are here not because the universe was made for us to be here, but because the conditions are such that, given enough time, life came into existence and went through a billion or more years of evolution to the point of humans as we are today. Atheism takes no faith. It takes a mind willing to accept that we do not know everything right now, but, with effort, dedication, and time, we might one day know it all. It takes faith to believe in a God whose power is ever shrinking into, whose influence is waning, and cannot explain anything.
What's more to the argument put forth by Kreeft is the claim to what God. Nothing in his argument lends to the Christian God, or even the God of the major monotheisms. This "prime mover" can be interchangeably swapped with any other god or anointed divine being or explanation. For example: all life is of one spirit, that spirit is the creator, who created this all to experience it for itself, to go through the every life ever lived. That argument is as valid as God making all of this.
So, which is more rational to believe in? Faith is believe in the absence of evidence. Evidence is required to make rational inferences. One needs faith to believe in God which there is no evidence for. Kreeft fails to be compelling not only for God as the creator but the universe needing a creator at all. Which leaves the evidence on the side of atheism and rationality.
