Post 34 -- Gashing remarks

Let us begin by looking at a pointed statement by my close friend:

You also had no luck in finding rewarding work in your field after 7+ years of school. You were just forced to move countries to be with your wife, and then across said country to remain with her. In your new home there is fuckall for good work and you're stuck being a box jockey with a wonky back. On top of all that you're a gd house elf for a good part of your day.

There's much more to this conversation that isn't going to be shared, but I will help the context along by noting it does not come from a place of malice. He's astute, witty, and uncompromising when it comes to the things that matter to him. I'm lucky to be one of those things.

It did get me thinking. My first response was to write out a sizable reply on how it isn't all that bad. I rationalized away the points I responded to and flat out ignored the other points. Yes, I am originally from Canada and have moved to the United States. I love the United States and am proud to call it home. Perhaps one day I may even be able to say, "My fellow Americans." I moved from the greatest state in the union--that's Oregon, by the way--to one of the most notorious for its political corruption, environmental degradation, and pious take on personal affairs: North Carolina. There's no rationalization to make here. My wife was accepted to the best school in the nation for her Masters program. It is exploration and adventure for me as I move about the United States, visiting historic towns, like Willmington, NC, Nag's Head, NC, and Savannah, GA. We have plans to see Washington, DC this summer. Living on this side of the country isn't my first choice, but while here I will enjoy it by exploring it.

I am not going to discuss my degree at this time. There's nothing to gain from it here. I will say that I have decided to pursue another degree which will bring me a great deal of career satisfaction.

The toughest point made was the house elf comment. Like most humans, I have hobbies. Hobbies are vital to happiness. Take away those hobbies and life is less enjoyable. I have had to sacrifice my hobby time to work on chores and errands. With my wife's schooling, I am left to do the housework, the shopping, the purchases, the driving, the laundry, the money management, and the cooking. This is the balance of power in the house currently and is by no means a permanent situation. At least, I will not be, even if it is a unilateral decision by me.

The burden of managing a home while working consumes most of my free time. Living 3 hours ahead of my left coast friends makes it difficult to plan for activities. This is where my happiness is conquered by frustration. The frustration which spirals downwards as I work on the house cleaning to find additional--yet, entirely avoidable--work. There is an inherent lack of fairness when one gives up their free time to help another. Made worse by a lack of appreciation for it.

Let me be clear here: my wife appreciates that I have unloaded the housework off of her, freeing her up to study. My qualms were always push aside by a stoic drive. I had no desire to complain about the work I had to do. Now, however, I think there are things that must be changed. The work is not appreciated when careless acts result in additional work. The work is not appreciated when there are eye rolls, comments, and exasperations over the inconvenience caused during the cleaning. The work is not appreciated when there is little effort repaid to allow for a making up of lost time from hobbies.

My frustration comes from here. When I start my intensive study, my wife will have to assume the roll I currently have, that of working and managing the house. Once I am done with my schooling, the balance will be restored. The remarks made by Dave brought about the realization that I should do more to set the expectations around this house when it comes to assisting with housework. I should not have to do it all; it doesn't matter if there is class five days a week or three days a week. Minor efforts matter. Failing to assist is a lack of appreciation of the work I do around here. It is on me to make that clear, something I have not yet done.

Stoicism is good for managing your disposition. When it fails, though, the person behind it is often an emotional fool. That was me today. It did not help that my cat decided to dance with me while I was putting away some dishes and ended up severely denting a saucepan. It's just stuff and it is still usable. Addressing issues while being stoic can be difficult, as such a mind will not look upon problems negatively. When we see there are issues around the situation contributing to the worsen of a problem then that is the time to be aware and to speak up. Something I need to do.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 33 -- Morality's place in secularism

I am not one who spends his working time listening to music. This is a habit that I lost when I was much younger. There was something enjoyable about listening to talk radio, sports radio, or podcasts in that it filled the dead space around with human conversation on matters of interest to me. It struck me when I was probably 16 when I was with my peers in a high school social studies class. My classmates had little interest in the world around them and possessed either indifference or fervent opinions on current events. How could they have such opinions while openly admitting they had little knowledge on the subject? The best way to remedy this was to dive into the opinions of others, listen carefully, hear objections, and place a reasonable assessment on the whole matter to distill one's own opinion on the issue. Talk radio and podcasts did well for me in this arena.

These practices remain today. Rather than listening to the next hot band or the overproduced music on large commercial radio (a dying beast), I utilize YouTube to listen to past debates, current news/satire shows, and individual content creators to hear opinions and facts which are used to support them. Today I was listening to another Hitchens debate, this time with Mark Roberts on the Hugh Hewitt show. Hitch is exceptional when it comes to this particular arena spectacle, but there are times I find he may have been better served being more explicit. Early into the conversation, there was two pressing points on human morality: how and why. Just prior to this debate I was listening to Dennis Prager, an annoying man whose lack of mental flexibility shows his the rigidity and frailty of his archaic beliefs. Prager, just as Hewitt, attempted to get Hitchens to explain why we have morality. It left me wanting to put my own thoughts down.

How is it humans have morality?

It certainly is not because of a god creating us with it, to start. It seems to me that proposition is, as it is in almost in case regarding the role or place of god, superfluous. Starting at the most basic assumptions about humans, we must first look to our origin. Humans have evolved over many millions of years, from lowly origins far down to the trunk of the tree of life. We are mammals, all of us. As such, we share a set of behaviours with other mammals which, far from making us unique, contribute to our shared place on this planet. An example of this is group cohesion. Without the protection of the group for many mammalian species, individuals would be exposed to grave threats. The protection provided by a group will directly aid in the viability and rate of propagation of that species. It follows then that certain social characteristics would develop concurrently to facilitate groups cooperation. This is seen in lower primates. Empathy, something many theists believe is not innate in humans, exists and can be fostered, especially in those who have the needs of survival already met.

The success of the group will continue as long as there are supportive behaviours to those ends. When individuals disrupt that order, there are often immediate consequences for their actions. Looking at spider monkeys, if a low ranking male assaults a preferred or high ranking female, that low ranking male will be ostracized from the group. This leaves him open to predation, limits his access to high yield foraging areas, leaves him exposed to the elements, and loses the much needed bonding and hygiene activity of grooming. This is not a permanent state, however, as the empathy of over like monkeys will eventually come around to aiding the pariah.

These behaviours displayed from monkeys also exist in humans and is explained by an evolutionary process. Without empathy, humans would have never been able to coordinate their efforts to hunt, to band together to build shelters, or to defend themselves from other groups of humans. Family or kin protection reigns supreme here, as we are quick to defend our families more so than we are to defend community members. An interesting quirk, as we then can act in a callous manner our of a cost-benefit analysis when it comes to protecting individuals not part of our family. If a god were to have given humans morality, why is this morality not always present? Why does it care more about our own kin over the innocent children of our enemies?

Why do humans have morality?

A similar but distinct question. I eluded to it above, though: we have morality, such as not killing, thieving, or assaulting individuals within our communities as such acts would erode community cooperation and cohesion. The conclusion to continual attacks on the community would destroy the community and likely all the individuals within it. Why we have morality is truly not some cosmic-level question, but one that is almost entirely answered when we answer how we, as a species, came about. The simple fact is that we would not be here if it were not for innate morality--a morality that can be explained without mention of a creator god. If we did not have morality we would not be here in the form we currently take.

The problem is a top-down vs. bottom-up, a common theme in my writing. Top-down suggest a creator who imbued humans with morality in order for humans to get along. Bottom-up, on the other hand, would suggest moral behaivour set the ground work for the success of our species. Occam's Razor employed here leaves us with the latter of statements; there is a near-infinite number of questions which would come from the top-down proposition, such as the nature of the creator, its interventative conditions, and who created the creator. Conversely, the bottom-up axiom presented has fewer additional questions, but questions which can be currently confidently answered, save the ultimate question of abiogenesis.

It would seem to me, then, that humans have morality and rational capacity to evaluate moral precepts. Religion or belief in a god intervene in these matters, often undermining the rational evaluation of morality and imposing strange or barbaric notions of human conduct. We have seen in our time on this rock we call home period of great adversity to scientific inquiry. When the church was challenged about the place of the Earth in relation to the rest of existence, the church decided it was best to burn people! Years later, we now know we are not the center of the universe or even our own solar system. This human effort in undoing revelation was not enough to shake belief in the supernatural to the ground.

The move now is to impose creation as the cornerstone example of human exceptionalism in a creator's universe. The argument is as follows: the Earth is placed in such a position away from the Sun, with the correct axis, the precise magnetic power, with just enough water, and the mix of oxygen to nitrogen in the air, all the mix of food to support ourselves, a day-night-cycle which is not too long or too short, seasons which are rarely unlivable, and the perceptive skills to survive that there must have been a creator to have life in such a delicate balance.

This is utter nonsense. It comes from the wrong position. If the Earth were closer to the Sun, it would be more like Venus; further, more like Mars. Life exists on this planet because of the conditions which are possible on it. We have seen conditions change on this globe which has driven evolution: at one time, when large trees existed but there was no biological means of decomposition in the form of fungi and bacteria, the Earth has widespread carbon sequestration, driving up the percentage of oxygen in the atmosphere. Such a change facilitated, in a nightmarish manner, exceedingly large insects. Now, with the decomposition of trees and the burning of fossil fuels, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has decreased, along with the size of almost every land animal, insects included.

Morality and human understanding of goodness is not an attribute bestowed upon us. Humans have, through evolutionary forces, developed innate morality. Our reason has since fostered our morality to encompass a larger diversity of humans. Without innate morality, humans, as a species, would not exist, nor would any primate leading up to humans. To make the claim humans were created in a matter to possess empathy and morality requires that individuals to prove an endless list of assumptions: who is god, where is this god, why did this god wait, why didn't this god do a better job? So, no Mr. Prager or Mr. Hewitt, human morality is innate because without it there would be no humans. Just as should be expected in a universe which is wholly indifferent to each and every one of us.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 32 -- Laws of the Internet: Wilkinson's Law

Maybe it is because I am of the generation whose parents decided the emotional nurturing of their children was the most important aspect of child rearing. Maybe it's because I'm an atheist and want some element of myself to live on.

I've looked at radical feminism, social justice, and atheism for the last couple of years. Back in university, while studying forensic psychology, I wrote a paper on sexual assault rates in Canada and the United States. I looked at dozens of sources and attempted to wade through the large number of disparate claims regarding the rates of victimization, the likelihood of victimization through one's life, reporting rates, and so forth. It was not an easy task. Now, at the time, I was also openly debating individuals who were willing on the topic of theism. It is vital to note that theism is a mix of cultural practices mixed with dogmatism towards the reason behind those practices, all tied to a deity or deities. I was uncouth at that age and was rather rude on occasion in my attempts to dispel belief in a god and the dogmatism that goes along with such a belief.

The reason I tie these two together is to emphasize the role of dogmatism. Dogmatism is a central theme in the failure of reason. It is believing what you could reason out to be not true. It stands blindly in the face of facts, logic, and truths in order to preserve an idea or belief. This is not limited to theistic beliefs: any idea or belief can be challenged and the obstinate refusal to listen or allow yourself to reason on the objections made is dogmatic belief. Social justice is included in this: the wage gap, the rape hysteria, the subjugation of women in western culture, and the patriarchy are all examples of ideas which have been challenged but ignored by those whose who hold dearly to the belief in those ideas and systems.

No one is a perfect reasoning machine. We all have some failure of understanding either because of ignorance or stubbornness. Some of us hold onto a dogmatic belief. For me, it's that the Canucks will eventually win the Stanley Cup. Both unfortunately and fortunately we do not hold our beliefs to ourselves. Sharing ideas improves us by the assessments, additions, confirmations, and rejections by others. This works well for those who have developed the reasoning skills to discuss the matters around complex topics, such as social norms. Children do not possess these skills, but it is still important to expose them to ideas. It has been said, in regards to religion, that exposure to one is indoctrination but exposure to many is inoculation. The same can be said about any other meta-set of ideas. Feminism, for example, can be spoken about along with conservatism, Islamic expectations of women in society, and humanist tenants.

This brings me to the whole purpose of this post. Children are especially exposed to new ideas. Most young (i.e., ages 4 through 7) children can understand simple ideas but lack the reasoning skills to understand complex ideas or how to evaluate ideas for their merits. This is known to our society and is the impetus behind why we see many religious organizations with daycare programs, baptisms, and education programs. Social justice also wants to get their ideas in early, too.

So I introduce:

Wilkinson's Law: as an ideology reaches dogmatic adherence, the likelihood of the ideology to target children approaches 1.

This applies not only to fundamental religious beliefs but to internet social justice, political parties, and even capitalistic marketing. As far as I have seen, there was no law coined in this manner. If there is, I will scrap this and give credit to the individual who created the articulated law. Go forth and use this, calling attention to those who look not to spread knowledge and understanding, but to those who want to spread poisonous ideologies to children.

@nrokchi

Post 31 -- Pointless talk, part one of probably too many

So, I've been thinking about starting up a YouTube channel where I read Reddit's /r/TheRedPill. Not because I'm an adherent, but because of how TRP views the world. It'd be an interesting read.

Post 30 -- Rapid thoughts after the Sargon of Akkad interview with David Pakman

The interview between Sargon of Akkad, otherwise known as Carl Benjamin, and David Pakman can be found here.

First, I want to say a honest thank you to David Pakman for continuing to follow the #GamerGate story, giving it a platform where the stronger voices from the community can speak. I do not think he wanted to bring Sargon on to chide him about this clickbait tweet, but that was a... well, odd part of the conversation.

Second, a hearty cheer for Sargon for being himself and not letting Pakman mischaracterize Sargon's videos, statements, or positions. Rather than play the victim, Sargon stood up for what he believes, and did so in a fair, reasoned, and calm manner.

Off to my take away: Sargon did miss an opportunity to better characterize what #GamerGate has been about. He maintains the reflexive defensive response that #GamerGate is about ethics and corruption in games journalism, only to follow up with rigid focus on those subjects. Honest assessment, even from Sargon in other places, strongly indicates #GamerGate, as Pakman was attempting to talk about, is about two different topic which have been conflated.

#GamerGate is primarily focused on ethics in games journalism. There is no doubt there. Ethics, cronyism, corruption, and nepotism comprise 80%+ of #GamerGate's focus. That is a simple and rather focused list with clear and direct actionable steps to correct issues surrounding them. The other 20%-ish of #GamerGate is about dogmatic social justice attempting to shape gaming. This topic is so much more broad, with many more facets, elements, and variables, that it gives the impression of superiority. Ask anyone in #GamerGate what the purpose is and you will hear about ethics. Read Twitter feeds, watch YouTube videos, and browse blog posts and you'll see much more discussion around dogmatic ideology and how it is attempting to dictate how games ought to be made, played, and sold.

Pakman see this trend and asked Sargon about it. Unfortunately, Sargon remained driven to hammer home the point of ethics. Good on him for that, but the rigidity of that move leaves outsiders curious as to why the obvious concurrent discussion about feminism is not being talked about. An important point was made, however, when Sargon emphasized people can compartmentalize their world views as so they do not overlap into other political arenas. This does not describe or help us to understand why there is a vast amount of discussion around feminism and social justice in regards to games and gaming culture.

Dogmatism is a problem in all walks of life. It has infected gaming in a few ways, most notably are the anti-violence people and now the anti-"sexism" people. It is vital to identify dogmatism where it occurs so it may be weeded out appropriately. Not by vile or aggressive tactics, but by clear demonstration of the ill effects of dogmatic believe and action, leaving the final conclusions to be found by the people who are curious. I openly accept you cannot win everyone over to your side of an argument, either because of lived experience, deep indoctrination, fear of appearance, or indifference. It isn't my job to tell people what to think, but I do take it upon myself to reason out problems, lay out my facts, state my conclusions, and let the final impression be accepted or rejected by onlookers.

One more major point before I wrap up here: what is this fucking spineless shit, Sargon? "Saying it in a video is different from saying it to someone's face." Sargon, if you cannot say it to their face, then you have no grounds on saying it in a video, either earnestly or mockingly. You laid out in a brilliant and humorous manner how Matt Binder is a fucking idiot. Randomly I will hear his voice in my head screaming "Chattel!" because of that video. You demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Binder earned that criticism. Don't back off of it because you're playing polite. Says something coming from a Canadian, too.

Last points: I wonder if Sargon is about to take the big leap into a professional role? I have been following Sargon now for about 16 months after one of his videos popped up in the suggested section after I watched a video by Thunderf00t. There was a Google Hangout one time where his name did come up as Carl, but I had never heard his name or saw his face otherwise. It's curious with the timing of his son, Daniel, and suddenly he's willing to show his face? Also, why the hell hasn't he been showing his face? I think too many Al Borland references.

I don't think so, Jim. #GamerGate

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi