Post 45 -- More on the weak petition to stop Roosh V from entering Canada on 'hate speech' grounds

Yesterday, I wrote on how the petition against Roosh V failed to meet the minimum criteria it claimed to be making: Roosh V was coming to Canada for the specific purpose of breaking the Canadian Criminal Code 319. Today I am going to add a few more quips to end the 'ridiculous' discussion around this. Claims require evidence, something Mrs. Parker-Toulson has been able to spout and but not provide, respectively.

Let's start with the first paragraph of this petition:

• "creator and administrator of the 'Men's Rights Activist' (MRA) hate website "The Return of Kings"."

Roosh V is not an MRA. He does not care about the core issues of men's rights, such as suicide rates, homelessness, gender sentencing gap, right to bodily integrity, or custody fairness. My claims come with evidence, as a quick Google search came up with Roosh V's forums and his personal post 5 Reasons I am Not A Men's Rights Activist. In this rant, Roosh V derides men who adhere to the MRM, pointing out all MRA's sexual inadequacy, failure to "learn the true nature of women", and limited scope on how to improve themselves. I believe it is more than safe, but entirely reasonable, to say that Roosh V is not an MRA.

Moreover, Roosh V is a 'Pick Up Artist' (PUA). He views view women as objects of obtainment. Their resistance, in his mind, is token and easily over ridden by a few simple linguistic tricks. Roosh V's existence revolves around getting women and telling other men how to get women--absolutely nothing to do with parental rights, genital integrity, or suicide rates of men.

• "Roosh V is coming to Canada specifically for the purposes of violating section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code."

I obliterated this claim yesterday. This statement presumes two things: first, Mrs. Parker-Toulson has knowledge of the future and knows exactly what will be said at the two gatherings in August by Roosh V; second, Roosh V will be using hateful speech which is not defensible under CCC 319(3). Neither of these statements meet the simple muster of a cursory assessment. Both presume knowledge which we do not have--Roosh V has not said anything on Canadian soil since the start of his world tour, meaning there is nothing anyone can claim he has said, let alone definitively claim it to be hateful.

• "The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has identified both Roosh and his website as hate-based, and the hateful misogynistic views that he is coming to Canada to disseminate are likely to breach public peace."

The comedy continues! I will take this one in reverse order: Roosh V's views that he is going to disseminate in Canada are likely to breach public peace? The claim is now clearer; Mrs. Parker-Toulson has focused in on CCC 319(1), Public Incitement of Hatred. The law does not lay out examples or clear definitions of what constitutes hatred, only that the (subjective) 'hate' must be directed towards an identifiable group. There is no evidence of Roosh V causing large, systematic shifts in public safety prior to, during, or following his talks. Rather, and as I illustrated yesterday, it is likely the ilk of Mrs. Parker-Toulson or Ms. Gadouas who will protest the event in an aggressive, loud, and profane manner (see Post 44 for evidence of previous anti-MRA rallies). What's more, Roosh V's lectures are held in a private building and are for ticket holders only, meaning his discussion will be for only a small set of individuals and not, as Mrs. Parker-Toulson is attempting to claim, disseminated wildly across the nation.

To the SPLC issue. Mark Potok, who is a Senior Fellow at the SPLC and Editor in Chief of Intelligence Report, was interviewed on the David Pakman show back in May of this year. The interview opens with the crucial point which unequivocally undermine's Mrs. Parker-Toulson's claim that Roosh V and his network of sites as "hate-based".

Pakman: Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did not designate [the 'manosphere'] as hate groups?

Potok: That's true. There was a lot of confusion at the time. Simply, we wrote an article that was very critical of the websites and many of the people behind them in the so-called 'manosphere', these Men's Rights Organization [sic]. But we did not list any of them as hate organizations and we haven't to this day. (Emphasis added)

The link provided by Mrs. Parker-Toulson on her petition in regards to the SPLC's view on the manosphere is critical of the stance taken by many different blogs and websites, even listing Roosh V by name on it. Strangely, the list also includes SAVE Services and Reddit's Men's Rights subreddit. Veering slightly off-topic: remember the art exhibition in Texas hosted by Mrs. Pamela Geller which displayed images of the the Islamic prophet Mohammad? Well, her anti-Islamic views have landed her and her AtlasShrugs.com on the official list of hate groups and labeled an "extremist" by the SPLC.

One final note on the SPLC. For all of its work during the American Civil Rights movement, it has been left floundering in a progressive landscape without the big targets of the 60s and 70s. As such, the SPLC has become more sensitive in seeking out new targets and less discriminate in vetting them. The systematic decline of the SPLC has resulted in it being removed as one of the FBI's hate crime partners. That should speak loudly enough, even for those not listening.

• hate hate hate hate hate

The word "hate" is thrown around a lot. I remember a time when my mother told me to be careful with that word. It is a strong word and, if it is over used, will lose its meaning. A lesson not learned by these petitioners. The central issue with determining hate is a definitive and predictable pattern of harm coming out of the communication. If Canucks fans deride Habs fans, does that constitute the Canucks as a hate group? No. If one man says women are stupid, does that mean all men who listen to him are part of a hate group? Again, no. The subjectivity of CCC 319's term "hate" is readily manipulated and massaged into a significant event by any interested party's will; if these groups which so greatly dislike MRAs organized and spread lies and falsehoods about the men associated with the MRA, does that mean those opposing the MRA are a hate movement in of themselves? Using the lose, flexible, and non-descript definition of hate employed my Mrs. Parker-Toulson et al. an argument could readily be made.

Really, I could go on, but the petition finishes as strongly as it starts. It continues to assert all MRAs are, essentially, rapists, adhering to the generalized view of women being "fundamentally inhuman". Mrs. Parker-Toulson even goes as far as to wrongfully contextualize--a feat when it comes to Roosh V's already miserable works--5 Reasons to Date a Girl with an Eating Disorder as "imploring men to sexually abuse women with mental illness".

The list of allegations goes on. Unironically, the essence of Roosh V's writings and beliefs are that women are easy to manipulate. With simple language and a bit of bravado, women will loose control of themselves and do whatever the man says. The fear Mrs. Parker-Toulson and this piddling petition is spreading echoes Roosh V: women are meek and stupid, unable to resist the charm and flawless techniques taught by Roosh V. You see, the women in Canada are stupid, credulous, and lack any agency, and we, the moral defenders of the nation, must save our gullible and aloof women from the certain threat of a man speaking to them.

Seriously, show some respect for the proud and strong women of Canada. They can handle a man attempting to hit on them. They are not scared of a man viewing them as a lesser--especially as young women are doing better in Canadian society than young men. Canadian women are tough. The groups doing the greatest disservice to Canadian women are the moral nannies and weepy feminists who value victimhood over independence.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 44 -- Canadian hate speech laws and Roosh V

Let's start with a rhetorical question: if we consider censorship to be in opposition to free speech, how can we have 'hate speech' laws?

Well, one Sara Parker-Toulson thinks there is no contradiction. She has started a petition calling on Canadian Border Services to deny entry into Canada for the Pick Up Artist (PUA) Roosh V (PUAs are not the same as Mens Rights Activists, by the way). In the petition, Parker-Toulson employs magnificent clairvoyance to determine that Roosh V "is coming to Canada specifically for the purpose of violating section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code".

Roosh V is currently on a world tour and provides a preview list of his speaking topics on his promotion page. At issue is Roosh V's claim that rape should be made legal on private property, a topic I will address later. Parker-Toulson and signatories agree that Roosh V's view on women, specifically those of the legality of rape, constitute hate speech in Canada and would be grounds for denial of entry into Canada or punishment by law in Canada. Roosh V has yet to say these inflammatory statements in Canada, but that hasn't stopped the censors from taking peremptory action.

Section 318 and 319 of Canadian Criminal Code deal with genocide and hate speech as directed at "an identifiable group". 319(1) deals with public incitement of hatred and 319(2) looks at wilful promotion of hatred. It would appear our intrepid moral defenders stopped reading at this point--or worse, didn't bother to read it at all--as 319(3) lays out the defenses for speech which may otherwise be deemed "hateful" (emphasis my own):

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Consider the bold text: Roosh V is not standing on a soap box in the corner of Yonge and Queen, proclaiming that women need to be raped immediately. His lectures are admittance by purchase only, which can be up for debate on whether or not that lecture space is public or private; if the event is considered a private event for those who have purchased admission, then Roosh V is legally allowed to say what he will on the topic. If the event is considered public with interested and impartial parties desiring to hear what he is saying, and Roosh V believes his advise and philosophies are true, then he may simply claim defense under 319(3[c]).

CBC Montreal invited on student activist Fannie Gadouas and constitutional lawyer Mathieu Bouchard to discuss the petition and grounds for preventing Roosh V into Canada. Ms. Gadouas is as expected: aloof, dogmatic, and stereotypical of the student activist population, relying on the core word set of "oppressive" and "triggering", with a teenager's does of "umm", "ahh", and "like". Her true character shows when she shifts from talking on behalf of all women, homosexuals, and non-cisgendered persons to men (emphasis my own):

"I would even go as far as saying that it's not only oppressive to women but it's oppressive to anyone who doesn't identify as cisgendered or heterosexual. It's even reductive to cisgendered men who are straight--it reduces them to almost caveman-like behaviours."

Why isn't it 'oppressive' to cisgendered, heterosexual men? Is that a subset of the population that is immune to oppression? Probably not, but in Ms. Gadouas's dogmatic adherence to the social justice philosophy, straight (white) men are never victims of anything. Our student activist stays true to the narrative that Roosh V's views of women are "extremely problematic" as they rely on "rigid gender binaries" which are "confining and limiting". Thankfully, Mr. Bouchard is invited in to clarify the important elements of this conversation.

"Hate speech is something that has been defined by the courts as a particularly special way of vilifying someone--you need a group, a specific group of people, it has to be targeted at them and then it has to cause--objectively speaking--a risk to that specific group of people. We can all agree [Roosh V's views are] offensive, but simple offense is not enough. You have to go beyond that. You have to objectively put the group whose targeted at risk of some form of more hate speech or violence."

Mr. Bouchard goes on to add, in regards to Roosh V's offensive comments made about women as an identifiable group and constituting hate speech:

"There certainly is an argument to be made. But arguing for a change in the law, because that is basically what he is putting forward, and arguing that woman should be raped under the current circumstances. Again, and I feel horrible saying this and trying to draw fine lines, because this is obviously offensive, but the courts have said that even the worst forms of speech is still speech and there is freedom of speech in this society. So you have to have something that says not only 'I want to change the law', but he has to say 'I want this to happen tomorrow morning'."

Pivotal in the previous quote is the focus on the difference between arguing for a change in a law and advocating a criminal act. In other words, Mr. Bouchard is delineating between Roosh V's statement of wanting rape legalized on private property and Roosh V actively calling for women to be raped. Now, there is good reason for the distinction, and context is crucial to understanding how one can come to this conclusion, given the nature of the topic.

In a post on his personal blog titled How to Stop Rape, Roosh V purposes that society "make rape legal if done on private property". He comes to this heinous conclusion after considering the social justice approach to rape--views likely held by Ms. Gadouas and Mrs. Parker-Toulson. Specifically, he focuses in on the view of women being unable to give consent to sex if they consumed any alcohol as compared to men, and how women can be held accountable for their other actions while drunk, such as operating a motor vehicle. Moreover, Roosh V recognizes the majority of rapes are perpetrated by individuals known to the victim, a view shared by The Rape, Abuse, & Incest National Network (RAINN). As such, Roosh V suggests that by making rape legal on private property, it would send a message to women to be more aware of their actions, because, "without daddy government to protect her, a girl would absolutely not enter a private room with a man she doesn't know or trust unless she is absolutely sure she is ready to sleep with him."

Offensive to say the least, but it is far from advocating or encouraging men to rape. Rather, while misguided and entirely incorrect, Roosh V is attempting to address the problem of acquaintance rape by means of personal accountability. He puts this act on par with locking one's car or house doors to deter robbers from having easy access to your private property rather than telling criminals to not commit crimes. Roosh V gets it all wrong, however, as protecting one's body is a far different scenario to that of protecting property. He is in some interesting company, in a sense, with feminist Camille Paglia, who believes free women are able to maintain their own agency and freedom, and, in a sense, can manage sacrificing personal security. Here is Paglia speaking on this point and how women's freedom of sexuality is liberating.

Roosh V has said offensive and incorrect things, but he does not command people to inflict violence or harm onto women. As such, his musings about the legality of rape and how to address the problem of rape do not constitute, in any matter, the encouragement of rape. His views may be misogynistic, but they are not hate speech. Thus, he does not fall under 319(1) or 319(2), as this particular topic centered on a discussion of laws and strategies for combating a social problem, even if they are as misguided and laughable as they are.

Why hate speech laws, then? What is the purpose of having enshrined in our culture freedom of speech only to have a law which can limit it? Mr. Bouchard stated that Canadian courts accept the most vile of speech is still speech and is protected, which means someone like Roosh V can speak openly in Canada. To a more philosophical end, what good does having hate speech laws do? In an excellent speech by Christopher Hitchens on Canada's hate speech laws (CCC 319), Hitchens argues that censoring speech harms us more than it helps us. Summarizing the works of Mill, Paine, and Milton, Hitchens says:

"It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard, it is the right of everyone in the audience to hear. Every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner of your own action because you deny yourself the right to hear something. Your own right to be heard and exposed is as much involved in all these cases as is the right of the other to voice his or her view."

This is not light conjecture on the matter of freedom of speech. Rather, it is core to the most basic rights as human beings. When purposing hate speech laws, we must be willing to abdicate our responsibility in determining what we find offensive or hateful to ourselves; to choose someone else who can tell us what we find offense in speech, picture, or writing. I do not know of anyone who could do that for me and I am certain the likes of Ms. Gadouas and Mrs. Parker-Toulson do not have a nominee either. If they do then we must become extremely suspicious of their motives, just as we should all be suspect of the motives of those who are determined to be offended.

Hate speech laws are tools of the vapid, fearful, and condescending. These arrogant few who believe they know more and better than anyone else. Their censorial instinct says we basically already know what we need to and have known as such for a long time; challenging the known consensus of the majority is inherently harmful to these weepy folk. I have argued before and I am again arguing now of the need to allow for people to be heard, even if what they are saying is obviously offensive. It is on these same grounds we can allow religious fanatics to use their public platform to spew forth hatred of homosexuals, women, lower castes, or the amorphous "other". Upon hearing this offensive drivel we--for ourselves!--can determine their beliefs to be retrograde. Silencing such opinions mutes the depth of the larger discussion, like removing the sweet flesh from fruit and gnawing on bitter pit and rind.

Roosh V is a PUA, not an MRA. He doesn't care about the men's rights movement and has mocked it several times on podcasts and blogs. The simplistic world view of women and sexual relationships Roosh V has are not to my tastes, but it is because of his freedom to speak--and my freedom to listen--that I can be aware of him and his views, giving me the opportunity to determine for myself his value to me, which is low. By denying entry into Canada, the perpetually offended harm themselves in two ways: first, they have already given Roosh V a shot of publicity. As a PUA, some men who are finding it difficult to meet women may patronize Roosh V for his insight; second, they deny other Canadians the chance to judge Roosh V's character and denounce him. It would be an unfortunate trend to begin if Canadian Border Services denies entry into Canada a man who might say something on Canadian soil that someone might deem hateful. After all, Roosh V has not made any comments on Canadian soil since his world tour started.

Interestingly, the sorts of people who claim Roosh V is a misogynist and advocates harm and violence against women are the very people who view women as weak, scared, dependent, and fragile; that women are unable to decide for themselves safe situations and are always at the whim of the men around them; women cannot choose how many drinks to consume; and that women are too vulnerable to hear speech which may be offensive. The irony here is as comedic as it is tragic. Yet, these are the same people who believe they possess the moral authority to tell others what is appropriate to say and what is not.

I refuse to be told by others what is offensive to me. I challenge the notion of hateful speech being grounds for prosecution--it is subjectively interpreted and arbitrarily applied. The people most deserving of prosecution under such a law, those of hateful and violent religions, are the ones most likely to seek its protection. The dogmatic and intellectually stunted cluster around such laws as a means of myopically defending their view of the world and not to provide society a service. If, in the event Roosh V does come to Canada and his speaking location known, the greatest disturbance to the peace will be perpetrated by the self-appointed righteous censors. We have seen it before. And again. These social justice warriors will stop at nothing to create a society where offense trumps rights, feelings beat reason, and the revival of the totalitarian mindset takes root all in the name of the 'greater good'.

Denounce these cowards and fight for your ability to be exposed to other points of view will maintaining for yourself your own agency to determine what is and is not offensive, harmful, or hateful to you.

Post 43 -- To Ralph and on his weight loss

Ralph,

Firstly, congratulations. You are living up to the noblest of virtues.

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Secondly, I would like to address a few things in your post that are possibly misleading or incorrect when it comes to successful weight loss strategies. I do understand it is all well meaning and that there is no singular path to success; however, a few points you have put in your post are contentious.

Eat less, move more, have success

" I joined a gym, hit the bike at my house, and radically changed my diet. You'll never guess what happened. I started to lose weight. "

It is a simple equation most people tend to forget, and has been very well illustrated by Alton Brown from an episode of Good Eats. Brown uses the car as a metaphor for the human body and gasoline as food. You fill the tank, you drive around until it's empty, and top up again. Nothing strange about that as that is most of our lives. However, if the tank is already full and we go to get more gas then we're going to need additional storage for that gasoline. For some of us, it doesn't take long before we're hauling around tankers of additional gas.

Many people struggle to connect the need of losing weight to a need to overhaul their entire approach to their personal health. If you start your day with a bowl of sugar--or worse, nothing at all--and then go get more sugar and caffeine for a snack within two hours, you're going to put on weight unless you're also running a marathon in that time. What's more, starting your day with bad food only to head off to a sedentary job or day of limited caloric expenditure will lead to your body storing those excess calories from the morning's breakfast and overpriced sugar coffee.

Eating less/moving more comes down to awareness of your lifestyle. If you have a seated job, find a way to stand more during the day. It'll be better for your heart and your health. Instead of rushing off for a coffee at 2:30pm, get up and go for a brisk walk without your phone to clear your mind and get your blood flowing. Always start your morning with food, but more on that after the jump. Add more movement into your day, whether that is walking, biking, or taking transit to work, taking stairs over elevators, walking around at your job, and selecting evening activities that do not require a couch. You will move more and will have less time to eat because of it.

Food can kill you or save you

" The thing is, you can just change your diet and loss a shitload of weight, especially if you have a lot to lose. "

Diet is the crucial element of weight loss and contributes between 70 to 90% of successful weight loss. Many people still believe--and wrongfully so--that working out more will mean they can continue to eat whatever they want. There is ignorance on two levels here: knowledge of how many calories are in certain foods and how quickly we gain access to those calories and how many calories we burn doing certain exercises.

The 'moving more' element here works more as a regulator to your diet than it does as a 'free food token'. Yes, if you are aiming to restrict calories, and you burn 500 calories while working out, you have a couple hundred additional calories you can consume for that day. The issue actually arises when food is used to reward calorie-burning behaviour; climbing a flight of stairs is maybe 12 calories, the 10 minute lunch walk is maybe 30 to 50, depending on terrain and pace. That isn't enough to have earned an additional sugar loaded cookie.

Let's break food down into a few categories: meals, nutrition, and caloric value. Success with food and weight loss can be as simple as planning ahead. Make a menu for the week, including food for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks. Have that entirely planned out. Get your shopping done on one day. Why? Attempting to decide what to eat at the end of the day when your are hungry and have already spent your day making decisions will ultimately lead to you taking the path of least resistance: pre-made, packed, or quick caloric food, which is often deprived of nutrition. By having your meals planned, including the recipes, instructions and ingredients on hand, you will avoid this decision issue at the end of the day. Breakfast and lunch are no different, either, with both being easily planned and prepared ahead of time--there's not dash at lunch for something quick from the local fast food joint!

Nutrition is vital to sustained weight loss. When we are hungry, our bodies are calling out for calories and nutrients. In today's food landscape, calories are extremely easy to come by. Nutrition, however, is not as readily available. Marrying the two used to be innate with our home cooking and vegetable-based diets. Now, we are able to get 1200 calories from a side of fries with our lunch that contain only a tiny amount of vitamin A. Food without nutrition is trouble; you will continue to be hungry as your body calls out for vital building blocks to its functioning and repair, even with 2500+ calories in your stomach. The nature of commercial food makes this an even more slicked slope, as manufactured food is specifically designed to hit salty, sweet, and fatty notes, which does have profound neurological implications--just look at the relationship between sugar addiction and dopamine.

There's another dimension to food, too--as if what we ate wasn't already complex enough. Glycemic index (GI; scale out of 100) is the determination of how quickly our body has access to the calories in the food. Our body runs on glucose, which cells turn into ATP, which fuels everything. All of our macros (i.e., carbohydrates, fats, and proteins) are turned into glucose for the body to use. Foods high on the GI scale are rapidly turned into glucose, and include foods such as bread, pop, and pastries (71, 63, and 42-78, respectively), while foods high in fats and proteins are extremely low, such as peanuts or streak (7 and 5, respectively). Glycemic load can be mediated by the amount of fiber we eat (both soluble and insoluble). The list of factors of how we process food goes on and on. The take away from and understanding of GI is how to approach certain foods during the day. If you are doing little for the next several hours, eat foods low in GI and glycemic load, such as meats, salads, nuts, and hummus. If you're about to go to the gym, where you're going to need glucose, eating a muffin or a bowl of wheat cereal is fine.

Where we fail is when we are eating too many carbohydrates which are processed too quickly for our bodies to burn off. This spikes our insulin levels, triggering the storage of the excess glucose. Our brain loves the additional calories for storage, thanks to the dopamenergic system associated with food, and we are 'rewarded' for this.

My day often starts with a big bowl of oatmeal, which has about 1 tablespoon of brown sugar and 1/4 cup of natural peanut butter in it, along with black coffee and a piece of fruit. I work out after breakfast and have a protein bar before lunch. Lunch is often leftovers from the previous night's dinner. Dinner is planned out ahead of time, and is very high in protein, fiber, fats, and nutrition. Water is my drink of choice (aside from scotch) and is safe to drink throughout the day.

This is a huge amount of information which I have collected over years of looking into health, fitness, nutrition, and food. It is all well founded in research, but its application and views on its importance as weighed against other factors is continually debated by experts on weight loss.

Exercise for fitness, not weight loss

There is much to be said about the header, but after my prolixity with the food section, I will focus on the important facets of fitness workouts over weight loss workouts.

The difference is easy to understand: weight loss workouts get your body moving in a manner that it wasn't doing before to help with burning off extra calories and inches. They massage egos and lull you into a false sense of success. The weight lost with these flimsy workouts is quickly gained back after one trip to the pompous--and utterly terrible for you--juice bar (GI for juice: 50 to 80).

Fitness exercises is about building your body up to do more with it. To stand longer, walk further, move more, and rest less. It's the difference between a spin class and HIIT workouts. You can burn calories sitting on a bike or you can burn calories and build your body by doing HIIT or power lifting. By building your whole body, you add functionality and endurance, while lowering the chance of being injured in the process. A natural consequence of building your body for greater fitness is the building of "calorie furnace" muscles. You will lose weight, just as long as you don't eat like utter shit.

I prefer mixing in compound power lifting (see 5x5x5) and high intensity interval training (HIIT) workouts. YouTube is a great place for examples of this. My personal go-to is (laugh as you will) BodyRock. HIIT workouts can take between 20 and 40 minutes, depending on how much you need to rest. You can select specific exercises which focus on particular parts of the body or general endurance. The end result will be a fitter, leaner body, buckets of calories burned, and the great feeling of being able to do more. Most of all, it is lasting success which can be built upon from little experience with working out. Making a work out schedule will make your daily workouts efficient and low stress.

Conclusion

Weight loss is something many people aim to do and too many fail. Expectations of outcomes based on limited effort destroys people's motivation. It's easy to become derailed without a clearly thought out plan. I strongly suggest to people to pick a day of the week where they do not work and do not have a long list of chores and errands to build a plan. Decision making takes a lot of mental effort and needs to be taken seriously. Spending several hours planning on a month of workouts, including scheduling time for them, along with meal plans and shopping lists will lead to success.

Another tough point to talk about is body fat. Fat cells do not go away (easily). They get large when you're big and merely shrink when you lose weight. Shrunken fat cells cry out for calories to store, which in turn leads to your brain asking for food amounts to fuel a 300 lbs you and not a 200 lbs you. With weeks of success, one bad weekend of pizza, beer, and cake can swell body fat back up to make it appear to have added inches back. For most people, that kills their motivation; all that work lost so easily. Understand now that isn't the case. It is an ebb and flow of a lifestyle change--not some 6 month project. If you want to lose weight, you need to think of it as a new lifestyle to live by from now on.

One more note before I end this ridiculously long missive: fuck motivation. That's right, forget it. It is worthless. Motivation is you lying to yourself. Motivation strokes your ego and doesn't give a shit about you. Discipline, on the other hand, is the groundwork for success. Set a routine and follow it with honed discipline. You will reap your rewards far quicker relying on a well set out plan for meals and workouts than you will waiting on motivation.

Alright, that's enough for now.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 42 -- A small, self-oriented project

After the fun of writing on the failings of Oliver Campbell to draw attention away from Michael Koretzky's AirPlay, I was graced with a wonderfully long and in depth discussion between Koretzky, Bokhari, and Sargon of Akkad. There is a lot in it, and is well worth the watch. Go now, put in headphones, listen to it while you clean your house... and walk the dog... and clean out your car... and repaint the house: VIDEO HERE!

That aside, I want to talk about something else here. As the title indicates, I want to work on a few things that involve me. How myopic. The purpose of this small exercise is to, as it also relates to the method I will be using, write down what my aims are over some coming periods of time. I am not a young man, but I am not middle-aged yet; I have had my time making mistakes and being arrogant to my mental abilities with tasks, goals, and objectives--most of which come up, are forgotten, and are not remembered later.

So now I'm about to change that. I will be writing more in a small book. The goal of this is three fold: to plan out my days with the vital things that must be done, to add in smart, additional elements of my day that I should get done, and to unload my mind of carrying all tasks, commitments, and goals with it throughout the day. By planning out my day, I know what is next and what to expect. Setting aside time is a nice thought for a flexible day, but isn't always how it works out. On more than one occasion in my life, I have been lost into video games attempting to get particular task down, which spills over the pre-set soft time limit. No more of that.

To specifics are simple: what are the things during my day that I must get done: work, laundry, house cleaning, oil change, plan a party, etc. Adding those elements in first to my schedule helps me have a plan of how to approach each task. Next I will be adding in the filler events: and hour for writing around 1000 words, workout for about an hour, work on organization the Pathfinder game I'm playing with my wife's brother Taylor. Get those planned out then execute. If I do this at the start of the day when my mind is loose and ready, I can then follow the plan to success.

There is one vital element to this, though: at the end of each day, I am to write down the thoughts, ideas, missed opportunities, failed tasks, successes, and pleasures to be sought. By doing so, I will unburden my brain of these thoughts. The next morning, I can assess those brain dump notes from the night before and ponder how to add them into my day or week. This works for small things like cleaning out the litter box to great things like finishing a book--both real goals I want to accomplish.

There just isn't enough time in a single day to juggle all the commitments we have. It is best to plan out the day to make it possible to address as many of them as possible without doing so in a frantic or grudging manner. I do not want stress or fatigue to dictate how successful I am as a person. Instead, I want discipline, planning, and a goal-oriented mindset to determine that.

Now for a brain dump here of some of the things I would like to get done, broken down by the week, month, and the year.

This week: get the roll20 stuff organized to game with Taylor; move out of the Tiger 1 or JagdPz IV to the next tank in WoT; house clean and laundry; organize new note book to start with daily brain dumps; 4 more gym trips; tentative workout plan; cool spot for a dinner out with Amelia; write 2 more blog posts; find a commuter bike.

By the end of August: school research done; hit 190lbs, while benching 190lbs; customize and set up phone; play through the campaign with Taylor; plan out events to do with mum while she's in North Carolina; think about writing a book and how to approach it.

By the end of the year: be at 190 to 195lbs of fitness; starting writing a book, even if it is garbage and stupid and pointless; aim to get into classes no later than the new year to work towards Physician Assistant school; design/plan a tattoo.

There we go, a nice lay out brain dump of some things I want to get done. It wasn't a complex laxative-inspired effort, so there is probably some stuff still up in there. Nonetheless, great start, and hope people who read this might consider trying it themselves.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 41.5, part II -- Assumptions, sequence, and outcomes.

I have been having a discussion on Twitter with @31Dobe. His questions to me have prompted me to write once more on the topic of AirPlay's organizer Koretzky's Update 6. My attempt is to lay out certain assumptions I have used to come to my conclusion that Koretzky was entirely in the right to post Update 6 (and Update 7), despite the endless complaints and poor parley from Campbell.

Base Assumption: order of events.

1. Update 3 with the 1000 to 1050 introduction slot.
2. Update 5 and the new 1000 to 1015 introduction slot; did not notify panelists of this.
3. Skype call with Campbell, Ceb, Bokhari.
4. Koretzky joins Skype call, argues with Campbell.
5. Koretzky posts Update 6 illuminating Campbell's antics.
6. Campbell starts a Google Hangout stream going through Koretzky's Update 6.
7. Campbell cancels.

First Assumption: Time allotment and formats may change as the event is finalized.

Most events will undergo several adjustments to nearly all their facets, including date, location, speakers, time slots, and so forth. As an event is being organized, those invited to participate in the event will be told the event may change as it develops. Factors which may influence these adjustments are endless, but we can assume the number and quality of the speakers, expected attendance, confirmed support staff, and research into the topic at hand. I doubt this event is any different.

At the bottom of the schedule page, Koretzky has written, "Everything is subject to change, and that's the object." The third assumption will take this into account along with why Update 6 can go up free of "off the record!" complaints.

Koretzky, it appears, offered to do his best to keep panelists in the loop of important changes, if he hadn't, there would never have been a basis for Campbell's blow up. A nice gesture by an organizer and moderator who will be stretched thin in the preparation for his big event.

In Update 3, Koretzky laid out the schedule for the event: begins at 1000 with an introduction to Gamergate, going until 1050. Starting at 11, the panelists will focus in on specific examples and events to give context to the basis and the greater aims of Gamergate. Lunch is from noon until 1300. Following the lunch break, the discussion expands more, this time with input from the audience. The camera crew is done at 1500, but the building is rented until 1700, giving even longer engagement on the specifics and philosophical elements of Gamergate.

Update 5 changed the definitions and time allotted: introductions were now from 1000 to 1015 and the expansion to specifics runs from 1015 to noon. This can only be described as a minor change. There is no panel reorganization and the total time for introductions and specifics is still two hours.

Second Assumption: The time change sparked a discussion among some panelists.

Koretzky did not inform the panelists of the time allotment change, probably because it was so minor and does not take away from the total time allowed. I see nothing wrong with this, as it really is inconsequential to the panelists; understand, however, that it matters to those who are attending--when you see an introduction segment of 50 minutes (or "an hour" as it was continually referred to), it can be off putting for potential attendees.

Campbell et al. engaged in what started as a discussion on how this might affect their approach to the time allowed. Campbell's follow-up stream to Update 6 shows how Campbell was hyper focused on keeping an hour of talking for introduction (yet, fervently disagreeing with Koretzky on Twitter about asking for that "hour"). Campbell's Skype conversation with Ceb and Bokhari was about the needs to have Koretzky explain why he never notified the panelists of the (minor) change (still a month out from the event).

Campbell admits the Skype call was about two hours in length prior to Koretzky joining it. Campbell also admits that he yelled at and ignored Koretzky's requests to get back to Campbell at a more convenient time (here, there is much ambiguity, as no one can agree on whether Koretzky joined to discuss at length or had a few minutes to explain the change). Nonetheless, Campbell remained on the offensive. Eventually Campbell left the Skype call, which he admits to doing. From here on, the conversation was with Bokhari, Ceb, and Koretzky. Ceb, in Campbell's follow up stream (posted above), admits that he and Bokhari were attempting to smooth things over. Campbell did apologize before leaving the call, but also described it as "putting our dicks on the table"--the sort of vapid rhetoric that illustrates the emotional frailty of the approach rather than it's logical merits.

Third Assumption: The apologies concluded the discussion, leaving it open to be discussed in public.

On the AirPlay Update's page, Koretzky openly states that he will be open about the process. Moreover, that his updates are to show the planning efforts so they may be scrutinized. Accepting to be a panelist means you are aware that you will be written about. There is no protection or "off the record" work, unless Koretzky and a participant agrees. Assuming that all conversations with Koretzky will be kept wholly private is folly and blatantly ignorant.

Koretzky's transparency here allows all interested parties to scrutinize the planning and participants conduct in the planning process. Campbell wrongfully felt (feelz before realz, though) he was disrespected because he was not consulted on the minor change. Further, that the Update 6 which followed his embarrassing and contemptible actions in the Skype conversation was uncalled for.

Well, Campbell is just wrong on that point: this event is indifferent to the issue. It is merely bringing light to a conversation about ethics in journalism. Gamergate is not the first time journalists have been unethical, so it's not breaking new ground. As such, the event organizer does not have to extend any special treatment to panelists simply because they "feel disrespected".

Final thoughts on the Campbell debacle--hopefully.

Campbell was wrong to assume his conversations with Koretzky were going to be off the record, especially with how he acted towards Koretzky in the Skype call. Following the apologies, one can reasonably conclude the matter was over. Without the actual recording of that call, it is difficult to tell, though--especially considering Campbell was not in the call the entire time Koretzky was.

With the matter over, and Koretzky's pledge to keep this process transparent so it may be scrutinized, Koretzky posts Update 6, and rightfully so. Ask yourself here: has your opinion of Campbell changed since? Without a doubt.

There really isn't much more to say on this now. After all, Campbell has withdrawn from attending and is working on refunding the money offered up to aid in him traveling to Miami.

Campbell has since blocked me on Twitter, which I can take as a victory. His self-righteous sense entitlement was easy to pick apart, and his true nature showed. Campbell, while able to write about his struggles, is not as tough as he lets on. Willing to bark at anything that challenges him, he fails to convince anyone in discourse. When he is roundly defeated on the larger topic, he immediately shifts to smaller and more specific complaints (e.g., and "hour" of time was wrong, as he was asking for the Update 3 allotment of 50 minutes, so when Koretzky stated Campbell was asking for "an hour", Campbell called Koretzky a liar--yes, that pedantic).

Moving on from this is easy. Not only did Campbell show himself unfit to represent even himself, something Gamergate can be thankful for, but the panelists remaining are in it for the ideals. Campbell stated he would be done with Gamergate following AirPlay, which calls into question his real willingness to do this, other than get a free ride to Miami. In fact, Campbell even tweeted out "It would have been nice to see the ocean for the first time in my life." (I best be careful here, I might not have got ever key stroke perfect in that quote, and he might come after me for it.)

So, let's move on from Campbell and his failings which has created a pointless spectacle. He is now worthless to Gamergate, something he was already teetering on as is, and offers nothing more to the discourse. Eyes on AirPlay will be vast and intensely interested. Milo, 'Based Mom', Alum, Ceb, and Cathy will do an excellent job with introduction, specifics, and debates on why this all matters. With Campbell gone, the event, and Gamergate's opportunity, has become better--and we can all thank Koretzky for that.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 41.5 -- Oliver Campbell's big stand and his personal ethics.

I happily started my day with a post mocking the antics of Oliver Campbell and how he saw fit to call out the host and organizer of the Society of Professional Journalism's AirPlay event. To the best of my knowledge, the series of events broke down as such: Koretzky posted his Update 5, where the time given to the introduction to GamerGate was 15 minutes. This conflicted with Update 3, where he laid out the days events allotting 50 minutes to the introduction. A bit of rounding is required here, so those concerned called for the return of the hour slot for introduction.

After the Update 5, Campbell, Ceb, and Bokhari joined into a Skype conversation about the change. In Update 6, Koretzky points out that it was only Ceb and Campbell who had an issue with the change, and requested/demanded it return to the hour long slot. This Skype conversation, which started with Koretzky, lead to a fever pitch of self-righteous fervor over whether or not any change pertaining to the panelists was allowed to go public before it was shown to the panelists themselves.

Once the group was sufficiently burdened with pitch forks and torches, Koretzky join. Joined into being yelled at by Campbell. A long conversation ensued. Campbell left at some point, leaving Koretzky with Ceb and Bokhari, who attempted, by Koretzky's and Ceb's opinion, to smooth things over (see Update 6 and Campbell's line-by-line complaint on the matter).

Now, as someone who also suffers from chronic pain, I can understand how sometimes the planets align, leaving me in a great deal of discomfort and in an emotionally drained state prior to an argument. This may have been a factor for Campbell. What I fail to understand is how after a night's rest and time to reflect, Campbell still feels as if he's owed an apology from Koretzky for misrepresenting a quote or two.

Campbell focused in on how Koretzky misinterpreted Campbell's own statement of "my wife wants to kick your ass", with Campbell claiming that wasn't said in that manner. I bring this up because it illustrates the very thing wrong with Campbell's mindset: it is all about the minor details to build the story, and not about the broad understanding of the issues at hand. Campbell took personal offense that Update 6 came to be, which I think Koretzky was right to post.

Why? Simple: GamerGate calls for transparency for journalists every chance it can. The movement wants to know what is going on in the back rooms and secret Skype groups for journalists so it can demonstrate the unethical and poor behavior of those journalists. Yet, when it is GamerGate supporters and panelists for a journalist event who are the ones with the poor behavior, suddenly a litany of people want a clear separation between privacy and transparency on business discussions.

Campbell has said he is not going to be going to AirPlay after this. Good, he isn't fit to represent the movement's ideals or goals if this is how he handles minor changes to scheduling. Yet, Campbell is parading around Twitter demanding apologies and forgiveness from Koretzky for even daring to mention the word "wife" as it relates to Campbell's. For someone who has bowed out of the event, he sure is spitting a lot of fire back.

No love lost on me. I was quick to point out Campbell's failings and idiotic demands for apologies. Which has since landed me squarely on his blocked list. Shows the mettle of his character that small slights against him can lead to such personal turmoil.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 41 -- GamerGate, AirPlay, and case of Oliver Campbell

GamerGate is rapidly rounding on it's 11th month. A hashtag movement and consumer revolt sparked by revelations of corruption, nepotism, and collusion among video games journalists. To this day, some people still look at GamerGate as just about video games. It is so much more than just video games, however, and, given the opportunity, it could be explained as a case study in how the new age of journalism is being harmed by self-righteous ideologues who are more concerned about their own image and beliefs than the market they write for.

That didn't take too long to write. I could read that aloud in less than two minutes. This point must be made as GamerGate is being given the opportunity by The Society of Professional Journalism--the benchmark journalistic ethics which many used to measure the actions of the many filthy journalists from around games media--at an event called AirPlay. This is a panel discussion about what GamerGate is, how it came to be (without only referring to Ms. Quinn!), and why it matters. AirPlay will be a live streamed event hosted by the SPJ. Now, because it is being hosted by the SPJ, it will be, inherently, geared towards journalists. Some in GamerGate believe that isn't good enough, but I do not think the ideals of GamerGate can be that choosy.

The event itself will be taking part in Miami on August 15, 2015. A well timed pre-anniversary bash. It will be a free event starting at 1000 and ending around 1500, though I'm sure there will be much more discussion following the events at the local watering holes. Panelists have been selected by the GamerGate community at large. These panelists will have 15 minutes to speak on what GamerGate (see the first paragraph). Then the discussion expands, does lunch, and then expands some more to become part of other SPJ missions.

Panelists selected were given the happy distinction of "the Blue Ribbon List", and include scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, Breitbart London's Alum Bokhari and Milo Yiannopolous, freelance writer Cathy Young, freelance illustrator and industry insider Mark Ceb, and (former?) games journalist Oliver Campbell.

My focus is going to be on Campbell here, and while an hour will allow me to be far more surgical, I'm going to do this hack job in less than 15 minutes worth of reading.

Campbell hosted a stream where he and other GamerGate individuals were discussing the panel's place and time allotment while working out how to use what time they had. There was a growing concern among those involved that 15 minutes was not enough time to truly cover what GamerGate is, a idea spearheaded by Campbell. The push was for an hour of what can only be called descriptive storytelling on GamerGate--a Metal Gear approach to introductions, rather than an Elder Scrolls one. SPJ AirPlay's host Michael Koretzky joined the conversation to attempt to listen to the concerns of his panelists.

A note here: SPJ doesn't have to do anything for GamerGate. Not a damned thing. It is Koretzky's generosity and ambition that is making this happen, and he's a smart man for doing so. The fact that panelists are continually asking for more from him is absurd, disrespectful, and dangerous.

Koretzky had the pleasure of being yelled at, despite attempts to address the issues raised--mostly by Campbell who appeared to browbeat down his compatriots into tacit support of his ravings. When something other than the demands of the tantrum came up for Koretzky, he was not given the courtesy that a host ought to be granted of leaving peacefully. Again, Campbell. Campbell even went as far as to say he felt disrespected because he wasn't absolutely up on every piece of information as it may pertain to the panelists, telling Koretzky he felt like "a house nigger". Points for shock value but not for argument, prestige, or composure.

Campbell's response to Koretzky's AirPlay update 6, which was direct result of the stream? To start a stream up with his submissive guests to go line-by-line through it to talk about how aggrieved he was. Not a damn thing about GamerGate's ideals, goals, and grateful spirit in regards to AirPlay. To prolixity, Campbell spoke of slightly misused quotes (kind of hard to keep track of all the yelling), how context to GamerGate (i.e., the entire story only) is the only way people will understand, and the continual barking to his streammates to confirm or deny whether something was or was not said. The chat to the stream is probably what forced Campbell's hand in the end.

At some point in the stream, Campbell waxed on about "not fucking with people's money" as some sort of journalistic motto. He turned on Koretzky because of the crowd-funding efforts by GamerGate to fund the panelists' trip and accommodations to Miami were, in Campbell's opinion alone, being fucked with. Of course, entirely ignoring that money put up by the SPJ to rent a space and pay people to work various jobs and equipment so that Campbell can have the stage we've all wanted for so long.

Well, I can happily say that Campbell, after these antics, has withdrawn from attending. Good on him. He may not have recognized that spouting on about how GamerGate is bigger than all of us while specifically focusing in on himself may have been in poor taste and deeply harmful to the grand opportunity being offered here. Campbell's solipsistic bent on time and belief of unearned respect ruined his credibility in my eyes. I cannot fathom how one can look at the generosity of a community funding my way to Miami to speak on a topic that I'm passionate about only to spit in the face of the organizer and host, all while claiming to be the aggrieved party.

To round out the last few moments here, I want to direct attention to the AirPlay's website and break down of how the time on August 15 is going to be used. Remember, there were six panelsits.

AirPlay is part of an existing journalism conference called Forging the Future. (Yes, I help organize it. No, I didn’t name it.)

It’s really just a series of small, intense workshops that end with an awards ceremony. It’s co-sponsored by the Florida chapters of the Society of Professional Journalists and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

On Saturday, August 15, in Little Havana, one big room will be dedicated to AirPlay, which will be split into three distinct debates…

10-10:50 am: Give Me The Bullet

---

All sides talk in broad strokes for a novice audience. That means no acronyms or acrimony. The goal of the first hour isn’t to convince the crowd who’s right — it’s to convince them this is important.

11-noon: What’s That Again?

---

For those fascinated by the first hour, the panel drills down on crucial concepts. Time to delve into precise points and specific moments.

noon-1 pm: Lunch Break

---

If you registered for the conference, it’s free. If not, it’s only a few bucks for a bag lunch. (More on that in the money section.) You’re also welcome to bring your own lunch, order Domino’s, or starve.

1-3 pm: Let’s Get It On

---

Send the kids to bed and lock up the pets. Time for hardcore warfare.  While all three debates will seek audience participation, it’s probably unstoppable here.

3 -5 pm: Talk Amongst Yourselves

---

While the video crew packs up at 3 pm, you can hang out. We have the room till 5 pm, so if everyone wants to keep talking/arguing/fighting — and record and share footage on their own — well, just don’t bleed on the furniture.

I’ll moderate the first two hours, since I figure I’m now the most knowledgeable ignorant person about GamerGate. The AirPlay committee, in concert with the GamerGate community, will decide who moderates the next two hours.

What happens from 3-5 pm? I think the crowd should decide.

There you have it. Plenty of time to make things work throughout the event, including ample opportunity for the most interested to ask increasingly specific questions about GamerGate. Where with the problem in regards to time again?

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 40 -- Depth and robustness for those who want it

It is common for political junkies to boast of their political wing's identify while using the opposing factions' terms as a detraction. A left-minded individual will proudly claim himself as a "liberal", followed by the smug besmirchment of the right as "conservative". It is simple language used with the intention of pandering to a political base. A group of college kids will be happy to hear of a liberal decrying a conservative over some social policy, yet will ignore the conservative even when the discussion comes around to national security and reducing military spending. This wholesale rejection of the "conservative" tag by youth is an expected one; the rebellious nature of the next generation against their parents' more conservative views, even if those parents are veteran gender activists from San Francisco.

Linguistically speaking, it is an effective tactic--having language that pits two sides against one and other, creating the literal us versus them scenario on every policy works to meet the needs of the populous. It should be obvious to most that there is an expectation for citizens to vote in the democratic elections, a vital right that is needed to support a democracy. As such, being, to some degree, myopic primates, most of us want to have some understanding of the issues du jour. Now, most of us are not political analysts who have the luxury of earning a full-time wage tracking political opinion and reading through long, complex legal proceedings and bill amendment proposals.

The political machines of major parties understand this and are glad to do the work for us now: if you're a liberal, you can rely on liberal sites to feed you liberal slanted news which will educate you in a liberal manner on topics from a liberal perspective. This liberal crash course on a given issue will also be keen to point out how conservative policy, values, or individuals are failing to address or meet the needs of your liberal identity. The Huffington Post comes to mind for me. If you're a feminist, then The Mary Sue would be your rag of choice to understand how feminism is acting and solving problems while illustrating how conservatives are hindering, harming, and haranguing feminist efforts.

This approach is very two dimensional; a linear view of how issues can be understood, placing all issues against a spectrum of liberal to conservative. The best attempts made at adding depth to the layman is frequently provided by major news outlets (again, see The Huffington Post), where you are still stuck on the linear track, but now on an incline. So deviously designed, of course, that as you move along your x axis towards conservative, your y value increases. What is the y value in this case? None other than the value of authoritarianism! The crude construct prevents those who identify with the liberal left from ever seeing themselves as authoritarian, a simple fact that does not survive the slightest scrutiny. For example, workplace quotas which demand a minimum number of women to serve in high ranking positions, as we've seen proposed by the very liberal Sheryl Sandberg.

The conservative angle on this is not dissimilar: backsliding towards filthy liberalism will mean you are giving up your freedom and sense of individuality. A serious review of this point will again bear too many examples, but the most obvious one is that of abortion rights for women, the moral degeneration which (somehow) harms other Americans' ability to not have to live in a country where such a heinous act is allowed.

This simplistic work up is effective for getting people on board with issues and with further solidifying the support of those who want to sound current on social and political issues but cannot be bothered to do the work themselves. Identifying as a Democrat is an easy move for voting, giving one a simple answer on the vote-test. Yet, when challenged on core Democratic platform issues (e.g., budgetary discretion, military spending, "equality" policies), individuals suddenly become a lot more a la carte towards the Dem's vast meal plan.

A better system for those of us who either have the time or the mental capacity to deal with major issues beyond the blerbs heard on NPR on the brief run to the store for another carton of organic, free range, grass-fed bullshit, is one which liberates the y axis from the x and kills the linear political spectrum. Let's begin by keeping the left-right x axis. Now add the vertical y axis. At the top of the y axis is true authoritarianism, that of Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and centuries of rule from the pulpit. At the bottom of the y axis is true libertarian, which is far more akin to Satanism or anarchism. A person who lands dead center would be a party Democrat--equal parts left and right, authoritarian and libertarian. A part Republican will land further right, but still the same value of authoritarian and libertarian as the Democrat.

The left has its own authoritarianism, where social woes of minorities or women can be resolved by strong arm government tactics to impose equality of outcomes--while utterly ignoring the presense of equal opportunity. Just as the right can be highly libertarian, purposing fiscal needs are met by those who can pay for what they want (e.g., all roads are toll roads; build your own parks if you want one in your community); there are no barriers imposed by the government and the onus is shifted onto individuals.

By adding the north-south dimension to issues, it becomes evidently clear the value of many policy choices and core platform ideas. Proposing to end the "gender pay gap", the falsely claimed women earning 77 cents on every dollar a man earns for the same work, may seem like a positive move, but it would land rather high on the authoritarian ranking, even as a left-based policy. As such, it would inherently harm groups which are not the focus of the policy. Taking into account how open a policy is does add to its value--it also adds understanding on why the opposing side might be justified in its opposition.

A tangential benefit of entering into the three dimensional realm of political understanding comes in the form of rejecting the simplistic us versus them fans. Those people who willfully flatten all arguments down into the linear realm are lost in the three dimensional space of robust policy debate. Outrage culture relies on the misunderstanding of policy to rally bases around support or opposition.

I will leave this brief piece with a the best example of the simplicity of the linear system compared to the robustness of the third dimension with a recent court ruling: federally accepted marriage equality for homosexual couples. The most prominent and justified concern from the dissent focuses on  the arguments used to win the decision: how are those points used in favour of supporting gay-marriage any different from that of polygamy/polyandry?

Enjoy.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi

Post 39 -- Why we needn't fear a resurgence of indoctrination education.

It is to my understanding that Sargon of Akkad believes the current and next generations of children (in the United States) will undergo a concentrated effort of what to think rather than how to think through the Common Core educational standards brought about by the Obama Administration. Link here.

To this point, I offer a brief rebuttal. The belief that an educational system has the ability to constrain the human mind is one that has been offered time and again by authoritarians as a method of mass indoctrination and means of societal control. Formal education has always been a key interest for religious institutions, whether it be Judaism, Islam, or Christianity. Unsurprisingly, these religions rely on access to the minds of children in an attempt to indoctrinate them with particular--and peculiar--beliefs about morality, the universe, and even politics, if we're talking about the American South.

Still, we get free thinkers abound. We are fortunate to be of the age where the edifices of religion are crumbling, after they hedged their bets on explaining the "unknowable", only to be shown how knowable something can be while still showing how little we know about it--a double-strike against the gnostics of faith. This benefit bears the fruit in the way of fallen adherents; the many friends, if not ourselves, we can name who started out in a strict household of faith, chastity, and deep piety and who later fell away. The mass exodus from religion in the west is a sign of the failure of attempted indoctrination by a mix of education, parents or the previous generation, and pious men with a keen and unhealthy interest in children.

Religious indoctrination failed so thoroughly that it required the pious institutions to create increasingly morbid and vicious punishments for those who failed to conform. Excommunication was never enough, but instead required whipping, then starving on a rack, and eventually to the gruesome deaths of stretching or being drawn and quartered. These punishments would have never been needed if humans could be so easily indoctrinated on a large scale. Moreover, it would also require the assumption the vast majority of people are sheep in need of a shepard, a fact that is evidently false. Rather, the use of Occam's razor would remove the previous line's assumption and replace it with the simpler explanation: acutely aware of the consequences of transgressing, most people held their tongues and did the dance (metaphorically, as dancing would have you stoned to death) to avoid ever standing out.

The symbols of liberalism in America will not do a better job than the old icons of the faith. Any attempt to indoctrinate children can be easily subverted by the ubiquity of the internet and a dash of skepticism, something which the human brain is innately wired to have. No effort aside from a lobotomy will crush the curious spirit of children and the profound power of pattern seeking which we have evolved. The moment the observer fails to see the pattern working perfectly, doubt will take command and the hard efforts of indoctrination will begin to crumble. Just as it had before in religious education.

It is a bleak look of the future to think so little of others. Despite my deep respect for Sargon, I cannot help by feel that he may have flown too close to the sun on this point. He has become the hero of his own tale, his mind supreme over the easily pliable, gullible, a credulous minds of the next generation's.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi