Drivebyhaiku

Drivebyhaiku , 1 day ago

Yeah... If anyone starts talking too much about the shape of the human skull as if that means anything whatever they are selling ain't worth the pitch

Drivebyhaiku , 1 day ago

Yes it does suck on your end but on the other side of the phone your perspective date is probably having a whole mental breakdown about it. For a lot of trans folk disclosure is absolutely nessisary as early as possible and preferably for safety reasons not when you are face to face...

Buuuut they also are very likely to get really vile transphobic backlash from a perspective date as much as they are honest rejections based on genital preference which sucks to be rejected for but is nobody's fault. There's a lot of trans people out there who feel like they are never going to be given a chance. Either way steeling themselves for one form of rejection or a vile reminder of the awful people out there who think you are subhuman and are offered up a nice juicy target on which to let loose their bigotry does tend to make for disordered social niceties. Once someone has been burned enough they get pretty damn shy and the procrastination is more of a case of battling personal traumas until the last possible second where one absolutely must do the right thing.

I would advise not taking it too personally.

Drivebyhaiku , 3 days ago

Yay for the social sanctity minding one's own beeswax!

Drivebyhaiku , 19 days ago

I would say Dune (at least the first book before it goes really fucking weird) has a sort of anti-colonial, indigenous(ish) peoples under occupation themes that Star Wars just isn't interested in exploring. With Star Wars it's basically just "There's an evil empire, okay that's enough, let's go" vibes to OG Star Wars. Like you don't have to pay attention to the political background blurb at the beginning that serves as pasting a veneer of political intrigue at all and the story basically makes sense. It's a War story, whether or not a Monarchy is involved barely matters. It could be "Ambassador Leia" and "President Palpatine" and basically nothing would functionally change. Empire requires no monarchs to function.

Dune does come across as "The Indigenous peoples of Dune hadn't a hope until this one random outsider self insert character showed up and joined their cause and was amazing at everything and was lifted up as saviour because vague prophecy seeded by generations of matriarchal Jedi (Bene Gesserit) manipulation reasons..." It's sympathetic to indigenous peoples in a vaguely problematic for a host of familiar reasons kind of way. Like the world building is great and all but I feel like you could swap Luke Skywalker and Paul Atreidies and end up with a generally better story on both counts.

Drivebyhaiku , 19 days ago

I only read the books so the movie may have course corrected somewhat to make that clearer. I feel like in the books it was a little bit like greek tragedy but Paul gets the "shades of grey" treatment for much longer than he deserves.

I have to admit a bias though that since the books kind of go off the rails pretty quickly I tend to prefer to look at Dune as a stand alone work strictly from an enjoyment standpoint.

Drivebyhaiku , 19 days ago

I feel like that's a pretty well thought out theoretical! Will admit to still not having seen the new Dune movie so mostly going by the book.

I don't know if I explicitly ever read into Dune that particular "Dark Side" interpretation of the Duel before as since it is so solidly from Paul's perspective it seemed to be painted in terms of something nessisary to survive further and thus more like a morally neutral painted thing. A loss of innocence for sure but not nessisarily any more so than other fantasy protagonist who took the same sort of step of killing for the first time. He wasn't granted much autonomy to completely peaceful exit the situation by Jamis so his options were more or less try and kill or cement his one likely route to survival. With the "locking in fate" thing painting his choice to die in the duel rather than kill as maybe for the greater good for nebulous wibbly wobbly timey wimey reasons.

It almost felt to me since the books were so bloody weird with plot points shooting the moon (though after awhile more like jumping the shark in personal opinion) and the factor of such grand prescience weakened a lot of the moral picture of any grand themes of Paul becoming an absolute monster as he's got such a solid "greater good" he's working towards that doesn't really have theoreticals?

Like okay, Paul sees literally everything that will happen from the arrayed options so his demise is always placed as being stopping a series of dominoes from falling by plucking the first one to fall out of the lineup... but those grand losses are almost always impersonal. He at the same time is a human with human desires for personal safety for him and his loved ones which doesn't place him as nessisarily "bad" just kind of instinctively alive. The plot always frames this as ultimately selfish but really only from the perspective of having a complete and total knowledge of how everything single action is going to eventually play out. It's eclipsing human moral frameworks by this bizzare aspect of sizing it up to a Godlike scale. Paul can make a "good choice" as essentially a God working on that scale of knowledge or a "bad choice" as singular human with a bias towards survival. While an interesting hypothetical I think that removes him strictly from the territory as being at all relatable on a moral scale to a conventional ethical paradigm. Like for all Paul's prescience he is limited in his ability to affect the board state so a lot of what happens is painted as his fault because of a choice he makes but if you look at the choices made where he really sort of fucks the dog on a God-like scale it's generally for reasons which make him relatable as a person.

Absolute power corrupting absolutely or later themes that people really need to not think too collectively and not create cults stikes me as not being Paul's downside. He didn't ask for the power he has to be dropped into his lap and can never fully get ahead of the consequences of having that power so I don't think Paul is painted as being a complete subversion of being a self insert turned bad guy so much as being a " tragic hero Chosen One" just being a hell on earth situation that he needs to weather with highs and personal lows. The framing sort of struck me as a fairly typical compounding trauma storyline where all the terrible things that happen to him make him more "heroic".

This is all sort of personal opinion though. I feel like I don't exactly love the Dune universe. My reading of them was largely because while I was staying in Japanese guesthouses I tended to read whatever English novels were left behind by previous occupants.

Drivebyhaiku , 18 days ago (edited 18 days ago)

I dunno if it's nessisarily subverting the Foreign messiah trope either particularly.

In parable there's a lot of overlap with the white messionic saviour trope just the indigenous peoples are obscured by sci-fi. The Fremen are depicted sort of as braves of the "noble savage" variety having an innate connection to the land in the form of their connections to sandworms, walking without rhythm etc and are visually othered blue by spice. Paul learns things about himself by their adoption and ultimately rises up through their ranks to lead them, takes a concubine in their ranks who represents his "love" but ultimately marries and legitimizes his connection to an offworld Princess. The Muslim/Islamic coding doesn't particularly help matters. The whole Sandworm thing is coded to bring to mind oil drilling. Uplifting the Fremen society is also not without consequence - doing so is destined to perpetuate a massive out of control religiously motivated slaughter across the universe... Which is not so great. Smacks a little of replacement narratives which puts emancipation always at someone's expense of being just replaced on a heirachy. Even the names Atraidies is Greek coded and Harkonnen is ripped from Finnish making the houses kind of White coded, particularly since the whole "Western Civilization" thing is often coded as the legacy of the Greeks and Romans (its part of why important government buildings basically are built to resemble faux Greek temples).

Paul also gets his powers basically from a Eugenics based breeding program which more or less legitimizes that process.

So while many look at Dune as a subversion of colonial tropes the framework that paints Paul as a devisive figure also sort of hinges on this idea of him being a good spirited race traitor who manages to become more Fremen than the Fremen whose fall from grace inevitably sparks the downfall and replacement of the (Western coded) civilization he comes from killing billions...

I recognize generally the instinct is to go with the kindest spirited read about these things which I can't slam anyone for. I don't think good faith readings aren't nessisarily a moral failure, it's human to want to extend the benefit of the doubt, it's just critique is evolving to see things more pluristically. People like what they like and this particular author isn't exactly reaping any benefits of influence, he died almost 40 years ago. People are gunna reintegrate his work to try and adapt it to modern attitudes just like they do with things like Tarzan, Lovecraft and Dances with Wolves. There is however a kernel of supremacy in the work, unwittingly placed or not (I haven't looked into the personal deets of the author's beliefs and maybe it's better that way) that is a product of the compounding and normalization of other like works that we are growing up to see weren't particularly good for everyone.

Maybe however my particularly harsh read is an extrapolation of my own background. I am a West Coast Canadian. We are encouraging ourselves as a society to have a really hard think about indigenous affairs and attitudes. Like its pretty normal where I am for all events, meetings and performances to be preceeded by a Land Acknowledgement and a lot of my friends in acedemia and the arts world are actively trying to fully subvert, credit or recognize and append this stuff so we can start dismantling the structures we're all unwittingly complicit in. I have buddies from the States who are pretty leftist who are just entirely mystified by the depth and breadth of the process. Yet I am no angel. I love the Anno series of video games which very uncritically depicts a very sanitized version European expansion and capitalist Empire. I watch and enjoy anime that routinely has aspects which are often ridiculously sexist in treating women more like beloved pets than people. I think Miyazaki was right about anime while still enjoying the fruits of that industry. So I am not gunna say "We should spurn Dune once and for all!" but like... I also think we can learn from it and not let it entirely off the hook.

Drivebyhaiku , 18 days ago

I mean yes, but that's a bit of a surface level read and I would argue more of a trope than a theme. Like there's a lot of fantasy where there is a scarcity based culture that makes for skilled people with very survival forward approaches to things normally governed by sentimental attachments that paint kindness as a privilege of those with resources to spare...

Those conditions in fictional tropes pre 1960's were just more often than not just temporary generational stuff. Famine, war, extreme poverty and so on were popular places to draw touch characters from but the sci-fi boom just elaborated it into death worlds where things are always horrible as a matter of a more overarching environmental nature. People have otherwise been on their box about the effects of soft living on moral character since as long as the written word has existed.

Drivebyhaiku , 18 days ago

It is what the author wrote but it's basically like saying Winnie the Pooh has themes of childhood innocence... Yes. It does, sure, but would you bother writing an essay on it? Deeper reads of the text give you a lot more subtext. Like for instance how the plight of the Fremen and the spice trades mirror the political situations in the Midde East, Atraidies and Harkonnen are rips of Greek and Finnish names with many of the main offworld characters having Biblical (Hebrew or Roman) names while Fremen are specifically sort of coded as Bedouin /Islamic Zen Buddhist mashups and sometimes they straight up speak Arabic. So the offworld Empire gets kind of "Western Civilization" coded and the desire for emancipation is taken over by an inevitable religious fanatism caused by essentially an offworld sympathizer who is the result of hundreds of years of Eugenics becoming a messiah figure basically being a better indigenous people then the indigenous people who are ultimately pawns in a female lead conspiracy that fucked up because of one woman's choice to have actual reproductive autonomy...

Dune's got a lot subtextually going on worth talking about but "Tough conditions tough people" isn't what I find interesting about the story. I get that from a lot of places so it doesn't feel particularly unique or special to the story.

Drivebyhaiku , 18 days ago (edited 17 days ago)

I don't really have the issue of using power over others. At some level Hierarchy is efficient which is why a lot of Democratic structures have in built heirachy to address speedy action...

But there's more nuance in what's going on in Dune. Fremen are kind of Bedouin / Islamic / Haudenosaunee confederation coded. On the one hand you have the tropes around the Confederacy, fierce warrior culture, connecting to the land, noble Democratic society and then you have the Islamic religious belief system represented in the cult of Paul basically becoming something analogous to the Prophet Muhammad. Both of the cultural trope bodies come from places that have dealt with Colonial occupation. There are aspects we are meant to see as noble and admirable. We see through Paul's eyes as he witnesses injustices and gains an appreciation of the culture which adopts him. There is a long history in the west of Romantization of indigenous peoples. Benevolent racism is still racism though. We follow Paul so we see as he does but the narrative framework doesn't always match what Paul does. His ability to understand the grand weight of his actions puts him beyond normal human senses of scope. When he behaves in ways based on personal sentimentality Prescience essentially pops up in the corner of the screen and says "The world will Remember this."

The frame always pops back up to tell us that by sympathizing Paul is going to cause a massive war. He is the fulcrum which the universe balances on and it is his choice whether he causes a massacre of incredible proportions. He's coded as morally principled- A good man maybe but also the narritive paints weak, unable and unwilling to stop the rising tide because his alliegences are ultimately to the indigenous peoples. He cannot get ahead of the war because the people beneath him of that indigenous culture will never be satisfied with peaceful emancipation but enact instead a holy war. Others must suffer for the Fremen of Dune to be self determining. The deaths of billions rests on the nessisary exploitation of Dune's spice resources the same way the world relies on oil. The deaths of billions is always cast as the inevitable consequence which is the main problem I think.

Take this back to it's roots and you see some of the regular pushback you see against civil rights movements. The idea that people fighting for rights or emancipation are instead just looking to turn around and subjugate others. That it must enevitably come down to a war where someone replaces the old form of subjugation with a new format. The jihad is this idea codified. Paul's actions are often framed as ultimately bad in the story but he fills the role of the person both enchanted by and betrayed by romanitic exotisism.

The story seems to be of someone who sympathizes with indigenous plight but also legitimizes the need for it. Paul is a tragic figure because he is given no third option. The story isn't interested in exploring any positive potential outcomes. It's a seesaw where the pain always lands on someone not in reasonable concessions but all or nothing battles. This is where the idea of Dune being an anti-colonization narrative starts to get very shakey.

I don't know if this was a struggle internal to the author that he was working through in real time as he wrote it, , if we are supposed to see the points of both Paul and the Framework as legitimate or if we are ultimately supposed to conclude that Paul was ultimately misguided... Of those two options both are problematic in multiple ways. In the Framework and Paul are right model you have essentially "what's done is done" Colonial apologism. If Paul is ultimately supposed to misguided by sentiment that's basically the plot saying "Do not sympathize it will only lead to the bad stuff happening". The Fremen can never be stopped from worshipping Paul as saviour and moral guide and the resulting massacre is his reward.

This narrative ignores the idea there are a range of different potential options to deconstructed colonization which are based on different peaceful reconciliation measures that are admittedly less narratively interesting than a winner takes all war. These are based on the appeals to seeing pluralist takes where compromise and actual respect is the work of non-romantic empathy. Different places are currently handling it differently...but that's not really what Dune seems to consider. It's structured so that at all times you know as a reader for certain that Paul's actions and particularly his bleeding heart sentiments will cause death on a scale far beyond Arrakis. It seems mired with ruminations more in line with Utilitarian ethics trolley problem situations which paints Paul as an ultimately divisive figure. The main issue is that it's using themes of indigenous emancipation to ask these questions which have fairly direct and poorly concealed real world counterparts. Precience exists to force the framework as emancipation as only choosing who is ultimately the worthiest of violence or what is ultimately worth sacrificing because of personal sentimental attachments.

Drivebyhaiku , 14 days ago

I mean I am having a blast writing a novel here. This has been one of the funnest interactions I have had on one of these platforms in years. I came from a family that couldn't afford to put me through a philosophy or literature based degree and had to be more practical about vocational training for the job that would feel more fulfilling because I didn't want a job in acedemia. I have way too much ADHD for that. Still I imbibe to a god awful number of podcasts and books on the subject and pick the brains of my buddies who did go to school mercilessly. My sibling actually wrote their dissertation for their Masters on dystopias in science fiction and became a librarian and got a lot of benefit telling me about the major points as a way to codify their own understanding. It has been requested that if they ever display a desire to go for their PHD that I should smack them... But I secretly hope they do.

I love Dune particularly as an example because it's got a lot all of these weird neat sticky points that intersect with the field of indigenous philosophy and unpacking colonialism which has become a personal interest. I would shake your hand if I could button masher. This has been a good time!

Drivebyhaiku , 14 days ago

Same!

I think I am hardly a mover and shaker politically aside from showing up to town councils a few times a year and doing some union safety and advocacy stuff and occasionally hyping Raven Trust. It's a weird place to be because with indigenous issues you want to be kind of tasked with something to do or at least have a signoff that what you are doing is helping but if you don't belong to those groups you really don't want to recommend any courses of action? I mostly do a lot more LGBTQIA+ related stuff because that is my wheelhouse. A couple buddies of mine are way more personally impactful in their work regarding Indigenous advocacy because they operate inside more exclusive power strucrures. I think I am kind of the layabout.

I think one of the most nerve wracking things on the indigenous front I ever did was run a D&D one shot for the former National Chief of Canada. Like I have done a lot of thinking on the implicit colonialist history of the game and the implicit bias wherein that reinforce that mindset through mechanics... But it's one thing to know that intellectually and another one entirely to pick through your homebrew materials with a fine tooth comb looking for fault.

I also feel like there is no silly in acedemia. Stories tell us a lot about a culture and picking things apart can tell us a lot about psychology, culture or philosophy. Like RPGs they have mechanics that inform the tale though everyone interprets those mechanics differently and sometimes they aren't really there to "say" anything. Sometimes there is no moral of the story you're just being invited to have fun. Like Star Wars I think is one of those. Like the Jedi give the veneer of mysticism but I don't think their internal logic is meant to be extrapolated out to be the author's world veiw. I think they are basically just a warrior stoic fantasy... But there are thousands of acedemic papers on Star Wars. Every student who goes through the system is there to demonstrate they can think and dissect thought using the current methodology. It creates a body of convention which then they might use to pointed effect in their own work one day. The process refines and changes the process which in turn alters the process and the cycle goes on. It's fascinating.

If you are into podcasts I might recommend "Revisionist History" "Invisabilia" "Radiolab" and the like for wonky dives into minutia and seeing stories from interesting angles. On YouTube I recommend the trans philosophy suite of Philosophy Tube, Shanspere, Kat Blaque and Alexander Aliva, the history and lit stuff with Crash Course, Extra History, Kaz Rowe, J Draper... I wish I had more indigenous forward stuff to offer but I tend to get a lot of that through books or personal connections willing to talk shop. The book "The Red Deal" was pretty evocative but also at odds with a lot of the things that we tend to have going on with local efforts. The books deal with efforts to make society at large run less on a western colonialist mindset but through a more combative nature. Like you can lock horns with the government as the book more suggests ... Or you can just change the dominant culture at ground level to normalize forms of reconciliation and restorative justice and work inside those systems indiginizing and hybridizing the structures. Like there's surprisingly little stopping my union department meetings or say public library management from adopting a restorative justice circle model for arbitration. Anyhow I hope that list of things has some fun stuff on it for you!

Drivebyhaiku , 1 month ago

Absolutely LUDICROUS, they always try and walk it in.

Drivebyhaiku , 1 month ago

The sort of "Band of Brothers" vibe is something I have noticed talking with the two folks from high school that fell that direction that I know. It feels like a high school clique but with parasocial relationships. Like they don't want the hassle of being king but they do want to be knights lording it over some peasants.

Drivebyhaiku , 1 month ago

It's a very common thing for people to equate queerness with other concepts of otherness like "not from my group!" type pearl clutching. Bigots in a lot of places are weirdly more accepting of individual queer folks when they are noticeably foreign and more treat the concept of people being queer as an outside corrupting influence... Nevermind that the existence of queerness is basically a universal. People from non-permissive places really don't want to believe that their culture will also constantly manifest new queer people. They often believe something along the lines of if they stamp on it hard enough it becomes more rare instead of just more people hiding and struggling in isolation and silence often risking their lives if they misjudge a social situation or dying because of a pervasive sense of dispair.

But no matter how hard you stomp the "problem" never goes away. You have to keep stomping forever in perpetuity. The boot must always rest heavy on someone's neck and will never touch floor again because there will always be someone there to rise if the pressure ever stops. It's in part why the concept of people essentially just being "born that way" has been so powerful.

Drivebyhaiku , 1 month ago

English is dumb. We got the term "seasoned" to mean like a veteran fighter, something aging properly and using salt and spice from the French "assaisoner" which means "to ripen / to improve with time" which we expanded upon by being like "when things become tastier" which is how we started applying it to using spices and salt...

In this case it means sort of speed running getting the oil sheen a cast iron cooking implement used to naturally get by just using it over and over when cooking over wood or peat hence "ripening" the pan. Way back in the day in England and France they didn't really use soap for dishes. You washed them with water and left them outside in UV light to sterilize them so all iron cooking things tended to naturally develop that nice carbon coat. Time and use made them better hence "seasoned".

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

So this doesn't work as a simple math equation because you have to understand a lot of key concepts first. This has basically nothing to do with the electoral college system so we will put that aside and start with the "first past the post" system of determining elections.

On it's face the First Past the Post (FPP) seems fair. Highest percentage of votes for a candidate wins. But imagine a system where we have a lot of parties. Say there are five- The red, blue, yellow, green and purple parties. So you have an election and maybe the spread looks like this :

• RED 20%
• PURPLE 25%
• BLUE 15%
• YELLOW 10%
• GREEN 30%

So Green takes the election... However this doesn't actually represent the will of a majority as only 30% actually voted for green. So in our little Rainbow country, as generally happens the encumbant party makes mistakes or compromises and becomes less popular. So next time the election comes around you get some party consolidation. Blue maybe has enough ideological cross over with purple to merge into a new party. Yellow is say kind of an extreme outlier and Red and Green are close on the political spectrum but they really believe they got this. Let's say maybe some of the compromises in the new Blue/Purple merger turns off some of their base and Red snags some of their vote share this time.

The new spread looks like this

• RED 25%
• BLUE/PURPLE 32%
• YELLOW 15%
• GREEN 28%

So the problem remains. Only around 1/3 of voters actually chose the "majority" who takes all.

So next election let's say Green, seeking to snag votes does the same thing Blue and Purple did. They change their platform to be more like Red to court the votes of Red party people. The problem being is they are too similar. The next election happens and they end up tying with red because the two parties split the votes but that razor thin line of preference between the parties splits the share. This is called a spoiler. If RED and GREEN are decently acceptable policy wise to the voting pools of both voters then you have a group of 52% that represents what a majority desires policy wise...but that 32% Purple/Blue party is still in control.

So over time Red and Green merge. They win an election. Blue/Purple changes their policies and the two start trading back and forth. Yellow eventually dissolves from never winning and you end up with a two party system. Almost all FFP systems devolve into two party systems through histories that look like this.

Now say we end up in the situation we are in now. The two parties over time sort of naturally drift further and further apart as a branding initiative deepens.

Now imagine one has sown incredible brand loyalty. They are marketing experts, they have been hammering everyone's fear buttons for so long that they could run the literal devil and the party would still vote for them because to do otherwise is heresy.

On the other side you have what could be best described as the lesser of two evils. They don't have to be paragons, their entire strategy has been to be good enough while maintaining a status quo that benefits people like them but they treading water. They aren't fixing anything just adding time to the clock. Not great but probably also not going to sink the ship.

The two go head to head.

Under normal circumstances the voting share between them is pretty evenly split. But it will be a frozen day in hell before those carefully indoctrinated into the marketing strategy of the Right wing will vote differently. If they did they would have to admit they were wrong and well... Everything that's been piped to them for years has painted the other side as decadent, subhumans who are "UnAmerican".

The lesser evil has basically just run on being the lesser evil. Nobody was excited about voting them in last time...

So the votes happen.

• 38% Democrat
• 40 % Republican
  And the remaining 22% split between a series of independants.

If 3% of that 22% those people thought Trump was the greater evil but didn't vote for the lesser evil then their abstention to participate in voting for a lesser evil , or even just not voting at all basically enables the Republican win. It's not a vote for vote pledge to support Trump, it's a more complicated series of value judgements. A FFP system over times demands gaming of the system. That's why many places have ditched FFP and has these more complicated multiple voting systems to make governance more representive of the actual will of the people to stop this from happening.

America is stuck until that kind of reform happens.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

You are correct in some instances. The construct of gender is for a lot of us just used as a tool. Some of the time it's to alert people to how we wish to be treated... Which is the passable but non-ideal win. It's not the fault of people's brains encoding us to a binary standard that is keyed to read our characteristics as vital information. At some level we are animals and our brains treat info about sex as important. I have friends I know are trying their damnedest to respect my mental health by using language and means of cultural inclusion which don't hurt but a lot of them slip because their brain isn't naturally processing me into the correct category. They are looking out for me and trying ... but the switch obviously hasn't flipped.

When the switch does flip and you are properly read people legitimately treat you differently. It feels so bloody natural and fast like you are used to dealing with lag and all of a sudden you are on a fast newly formatted machine not bogged down by bloatware. Moreover a lot of things stop feeling artificial and like someone trying to calculate how they are supposed treat you. Getting that switch to flip is aided by social constructs - gender expression which the brain learns to read as just more markers of sex. It's the extra power to get us over that hurdle.

It's imperfect though. To use gender constraints as a tool can get you what you need but sometimes at the cost of what you want. The number of transfemmes out there envying the cis girl wearing the low effort androgynous shlumpy t-shirt and jeans and still effortlessly getting correctly gendered when they go out to do stupid bullshit errands... Is like the trans Cinderella wish.... Most of the trans femmes I know are one " Oh fairy godsmother I wish I could go to the 7-11 without eyeliner and not have the cashier call me "sir"." away from selling their souls to the fae.

On the flip side Try being a pre-T flamboyantly gay transmasc with not uber straight masculine vibes... You can perform like a puppet on a string to a rather stupid and arbitrary social convention of rigid gender performance or you can have people hammer on your feel like lukewarm invisible crap button all day making every social interaction you have feel like an exercise of utter pain as your dopamine rapidly flees your body and leaves you an empty husk.

Most of the time you kind of have to pick one. We are slaves to the construct cage of gender more than most. What is underneath it all is something we do not wholly control. What I experience daily makes no logical sense from the idea of gender always being a choice. I can learn how I work but not change it... Furthermore if it were something I could change I don't think I would. It would be far greater violation of selfhood to change something that has colored every relationship with myself and every human being I have ever known just so I could be comfortable in a body I don't like.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

Radical idea, how about you don't try and pull this on someone who has stated that they are in the cohort of people who has experienced this type of violence repeatedly with examples?

It is incredibly invalidating to have someone try and use percentages to tell you what you should and shouldn't be afraid of when you have already had legitimate cause to fear for your safety in the past. This person is not the audience for that and you are only going to make them more afraid because you have demonstrated that you place objective percentages based on wider population demographics over their personal lived experience... Which is a jerk thing to do because what it ACTUALLY does is make a previously victimized person relive experiences of other invalidations they experienced following the traumatic events and deepens their overall distrust of people to care and take what happened to them seriously.

You are trying to score points to prove you're right at the expense of someone's overall well being when you do this. Even if you are right it's a shitty thing to do to a person.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

Some industries are better than others. I work in a situation where I work with multiple crews. Some are great where everybody just acts like people and... some are shit where if they get a fem-presenting person on random call from the hall they act like they are radioactive and chuck them back in the call out pool unfailingly at day's end.

I see a lot of bad power dynamics at play regularly. The thing I found the most telling on a crew is the treatment pretty girls get over the plain or unattractive ones. If it seems like the guys are just generally more attentive to the pretty ones and not making an effort through be sociable more generally and not rewarding actual merit - or if a crew tends to keep the same guys and the girls keep cycling out then chances are good there's shit going on under the surface that the girls are too afraid to talk about until they learn you're trustworthy enough to vent to.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

I am not the person you originally spoke to and I do not feel myself personally attacked. I am also not someone who has experienced this particular trauma but I have experienced some fairly nasty trauma in other fields none-the-less.

Your method of healing your personal trauma does not mend theirs and you are not presenting it in an empathetic way. You are trying to shame them and humiliate them for seeming silly for their experiences by trying to treat them as hysterical. There are ways to de-escalate a fear reaponse in people but that isn't what you're doing. You are not listening when someone routinely is telling you they aren't ready and trying to force your framework on them to make yourself feel justified. Recognize your audience. If someone is going to de-escalate their fear response it is going to be a conscious process over time, not from a random stranger on the internet swaggering up and saying "I have numbers". Who knows where the person you are talking to might be coming from? They may be in a community that is suffering a disproportional problem where that fear might actually be logical.

Rather than YOU feeling attacked about where she's coming and trying to strike back maybe realize - if you've managed to deal with your traumas you have the advantage of an emotional distance they do not. Use that distance to display empathy to that situation or back off because you are not going to make anything better otherwise. Do you want to be right or do you want to do good because sometimes you have to choose.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

I'm a trans-masculine person who worked in siding and concrete forming before transitioning over to work as union film set dressing. Think professional furniture mover who handles everything from delicate little knicknacks to industrial equipment. My second career is closer to egalitarian split but it's still favors guys by a margin. I fall into the gender gulf as a lot of guys don't really connect with me being their people... But I don't really veiw women as my people either. I can just kind of relate to their problems because we share some of the same issues with how we are precieved and they feel more comfortable venting around me even if they are confused about me.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

Half the problem with a lot of these discussions is that they devolve into the "I've been wronged" kyriarchy Olympics where people are not content to simply be wronged but they must be the most wronged and everyone else must be smacked for even implying that they are also wronged . She was doing it AND you are doing it too. She's just reflecting your energy back at you Neither of you are going to get far until you can shelve your individually held needs long enough to recognize the other's. Yes you were hurt, so were they but they are never going to offer YOU empathy if you can't demonstrate you understand their fear is real to them.

Remember that women's indoctrination for all the things they need to watch for to keep themselves safe starts early and there are very rare places in the world where they actually venture out after dark alone without fear. They are taught from childhood that there be monsters, that they are helpless, that they have to be suspicious and wary. You don't treat fear that has been cultivated since childhood by the people training you to be an adult by dismissal. You don't treat any fear by dismissal.

You want to talk about owning your shit? This isn't a race to claim the most victimhood - that is toxic as shit. You want to change things for the better make people feel heard and ask what tools they need to feel safe. Make everyone feel safer and more supported rather than like they can't trust you to care about anything but your own shit because yeah their fear is your problem. But if you can't properly engage with it it is never going to go away.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

You are very tiring. Honestly it's very difficult to empathize with someone who keeps trying so god damn hard to borrow other forms of oppression to validate their own.

I am sympathetic to men and women in regards to the issues that plague both but for fuck sake. If you don't understand the mechanics of how to foster empathy you are just going to become bitter and angry. Yes, Talk about the things that make you feel oppressed but don't try and do so as with the intention to shut someone else down as a counter to someone else venting their issues. Create your own moment where you talk about how this stuff in isolation of other people's shit . That's how you make your issues known while not seeming like a raging narcissistic ass.

Your problem is only tangentially sexism related. In reality it's is not understanding basic social dynamics.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

Sure. Whatever floats your boat. Have fun talking with unyielding walls that offer you neither refuge nor comfort because you are too stubborn to look for doors.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

I realize it's a joke but actually one of issues with aggressive minimalism is that it's actually very nessisary to be decently wealthy to pull off. If you can not afford to treat tools and materials as effectively single use items that are frequently expunged from your spaces then it can actually be fairly wasteful and expensive. Extensive lending resources like tool libraries in cities being available makes it more tenable but otherwise yeah... Minimalism is kind of for the rich.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

Minimalism primary is an aesthetic not simply a "decluttered lifestyle". It's a fashion. There isn't a bunch of stuff tucked carefully in boxes perfectly Marie Kondoed out of the way. With minimalism if you end up with spares of anything you get rid of the spares because the idea is that you are removing psychological noise for a clean look. Things that are infrequently used are looked at as the enemy of the aesthetic.

What you are thinking of is not the aesthetic movement it is the idea of having slightly less stuff. Low or Zero-waste lifestyles are a very optional part of minimalism and arguably more of a separate sustainable eco movement ...but it is really hard to do those lifestyles in isolation because while you might not bring new single use things it does mean finding them elsewhere which requires someone else to have stuff or outside resources.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

You're thinking of the more nebulous "decluttered lifestyle". Minimalism is an aesthetic design choice. Think of those houses where like there's no shelves, no storage tucked out of the way.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

It is more of a rich trendy thing. I have seen it particularly in mansions and high end apartments and things that I have been given access to via my work but I don't think I have ever seen anybody who is strictly working class pull it off.

Hoarding is more common but with hoarding there's more of a psychological element where they are anxious about removing objects from their places. Sometimes it's from a place of having experienced traumatic scarcity but it seems to me more often it's more about believing there is a larger connection between memory and stuff than actually exists. Like "I can't throw out this half melted kettle or I might forget the day it boiled dry on the stove and everybody laughed about it! " - there is a lack of trust that they will remember it without the item or that all memories are worth clinging to to the extent of impacting their physical space. The Archive of memory hoarder is also the worst to try and help because after the fact if they ever feel the need to revisit something they let go for any reason they will blame the people who tried to help them with their total consent to cut down on their stuff and some of them never get over that resentment.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

Hard agree onnmany of your points. Part of the issue with housing is how investment based home ownership is. We need to start looking at those investments as investments - a risk based choice that can be impacted by outside factors because of a change of needs of society. It certainly sucks to be on the loss of returns side if a risky investment... But a society where no one can have a secure place to live is going to eventually destabilize, crash and burn and that need is greater than the need for a profitable portfolio.

One of the many issues with a liberal free market is that we become accustomed to being very callous about the small fry at the bottom and more or less ambivalent or openly hostile about the sharks at the top but it's the medium sized fish in the middle that nobody wants to hurt. They just "played the game right" not nessisarily taking more than their perceived due and not doing so astronomically better that their plight cannot be empathized with... But if they are the ones who are somehow crashing the ecosystem - even if its through no fault of their own - they will go down with it when it does and if it comes down to eating the costs of keeping everything afloat or everybody loses - well a choice to take everything down with them isn't a noble one.

When enough people aren't hitting the very base needs on the Maslow's Heirachy of needs you start seeing a lot more widespread disordered ability to function and eventually if the course doesn't properly correct we could see it do so in an abrupt and violent way. That does mean thinking collectively and realizing that the true ethical choice is the one that might hurt you in particular and sacrificing individual gains for the benefits of a community.

Not an easy thing when we have as a society been trained to be fairly misanthopic.

Drivebyhaiku , 2 months ago

Homelessness looks different depending on your country. In Japan for instance it's not hostels but internet cafes that host the majority of the homeless population. Basically those cafes were designed to give young people places to play games, surf the web and so on outside of the family home but because a lot of them had complimentary drinks, showers and whatnot they basically became nightly accommodation where a single night cost about the same as a decent meal you ended up with a place for a transient population of casual under employed workers to stay.

A lot of people in that situation face massive precarity. They live day to day keeping with very few personal possessions and tend to work jobs that are exploitative or dangerous because employers basically know they are in trouble and use that as leverage. An injury or illness can quickly cause you to fall into sleeping rough and become quickly life threatening because safety nets are few and far in between and if you can't look clean your ability to self support becomes less likely.

That particular death spiral exists all over just in different forms. In the US it's more likely to involve living out of a car. In Europe hostels intended on paper for backpackers but the basics are that once you start legitimately looking shabby and unclean to other people the empathy dries up so you need to do whatever you can to keep your head above that water because recovery past that point gets very very hard.

Drivebyhaiku , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

There are actually different models of talking about sexuallity. The one most common that you know where there's stuff like gay, lesbian, bi... But when you have trans folks that doesn't nessisarily give much credence to genital preferences. It's more a reference to the cultural gender expectations. A cis man and a pre-medical trans man is still gay where a cis man and a trans woman in the same situation is straight... But when you are non-binary this model doesn't serve because if I am culturally neither male or female is me liking a specific presentation gay or straight? If you're defaulting to what my body type is then neither is correct. I am not pan or bi because I don't like both and I am not straight or gay because those things frame relationships between physical sexes not fitting neatly into the changing cultural landscape of gender.

The other less used model just describes what someone finds sexy. A gynophile is attracted to feminine presentation, androphiles like the masculine, Skoliophiles are into non-binary people and ambiphiles like all.

It is a little 4D chess but it's easier to pick up when you don't have to account for old rules.

Drivebyhaiku , 3 months ago (edited 3 months ago)

The difference between liberal and left is not fully capitalism dependant. It has more to do with lateral vs horizontal power structures. Liberal rhetoric tends to focus very much on personal property rights which means it basically is a machine to enable unchecked capitalism because it resists anything that would enable seizure or social checks on acquisition or regulation. It reinforces heirachy by legitimizing and protecting wealth and ensuring it snowballs creating greater inequity over time. Any check on what is considered personal property is anti-liberal to some extent.

There are actually liberal and social attitudes towards capitalism. Anti-trust measures, stock restrictions, union organization, reabsorbing privately held services and property into public trusts and services. These things exist as social counter measures to unchecked capitalism but not an attempt to explicitly remove the basic idea of investment capital existing in some form or another. The focus on decentralization of wealth agrigation and empowering labor still makes it nominally left of center.

Drivebyhaiku , 3 months ago

Also the thing is just steeped in trans metaphor. Consider the agents deadnaming Neo throughout as "Mister Anderson" Ander being intended as the same word part as Androgens, Androgyny or Misandry... Mister Ander Son. The system keeps reinforcing his identity as Man man man.

Go listen back through Morpheus's speech just before he offers a red and blue pill (back in the 90's horomone treatments for trans women came in the form of little red pills)... It's a sci-fi parable for gender roles and dysphoria. Of being forced into a system where oppression isn't seen or heard or touched because almost nobody recognizes it. Only some nebulous but insistant feeling causes you to want to break free, to explore yourself.

And once you break free you no longer have the protection from the system. The system sees you as a threat. You must accept less resources and support outside of whatever small found family and resistance you gather.

Like all scifi parables some of it's metaphor plays second fiddle to making the technical premise work from a narrative perspective...but whenever they start talking about the Matrix consider they are actually saying "The Bioessentialist construct of gender" and you can see a lot of the different facets behind deliberate creative choices.

Drivebyhaiku , 3 months ago

Yeah a lot of cis people really reject the term. Some don't like the way it sounds and wants to self identify with a word that they like more... A certain number stick to their guns in wanting to make sure that there is no word that is used for people who are not trans.

Sometimes they opt for wanting to be called "normal" without realizing that there is a value judgement implicit in that word. If you have a "normal man" and a "trans man" you are saying that transness is abnormal, pathologizing gender. You reach the same effect by omission of a word. If there is a man and a trans man then one of these things is assumed standard and the other the deviation.

Of course they don't see a problem with this because under that model they personally don't take on the psychological burden of constantly having to referring to oneself by terminology reserved for either the deviant or somehow inferior. To those unused to questioning their centrally held power the idea of just having a word to describe them in relation to others is seen as an oppression.

If enough people disliked the term cis they could band together and just come up with another value neutral word....That's basically how we arrived at the less science centric terms for other sexuallities like "gay" as an example. "Homosexual" being a relatively new classification wasn't exactly loved by the people to whom it was applied to beyond their consent as it sounded clinical. Other euphemisms had always existed but gay was purposely adopted as a synonym by the queer community.

I don't think there would be objection from the trans community long as the term synonymous for cis was essentially was not trying to imply that it is somehow the default state of being.

Think of the potential slang we are missing out on!

Drivebyhaiku , 3 months ago

Not fully defanged yet. Queer can still be used as a pejorative just like if someone said "That's so gay!" in the 90's schoolyard usage to synonym for dumb, uncool or bad... We did however make it kind of harder to pull off as a lot of the time unless you make your tone or context explicitly negative it just comes across as using it in a neutral way.

Drivebyhaiku , 3 months ago

There's technically a warrant process required so you have to be operating on a reasonable proof of misconduct from an individual.

Realistically there are issues with Digital IDs. Like the ones that currently exist are for Service Canada websites and services so stuff like disability benefits, healthcare interfacing stuff, tax ans employment insurance related stuff. It's basically just supposed to be an extra encryption key that makes it easier for users and cuts out password issues... So it's basically just government encryption operating on government sites.

An authentication system requires both halves of an equation to have the program and so backwards engineering the whole thing is very possible by anyone working for the vendors. It opens vectors for nasty blackmail material if someone uses a digital ID to feign access to things. Even without the blackmail angle it can be dangerous...Like if someone posts illegal child porn before a moderation influence flags it someone who knows the system could clone your Digital ID to watch it and you could end up with the legal charges.

This is likely to just push people to go further underground to illicit sources for their porn. The ones that aren't legal businesses or platforms. Essentially it could end up meaning more audience and financial support for the illegal platforms and infrastructure who produce the stuff we desperately want to stop.

Drivebyhaiku , 3 months ago

The current ID system for accessing government services is sort of like that as I understand it... But the Conservatives haven't really been very forthcoming about how they actually intend to enforce a digital id legislation on a bunch of privately owned digital vendors from multiple countries that are already slippery. They haven't really outlined what active enduring measures would be required to keep up this sort of digital regulation for it to be maintained in perpetuity. It all feels like trying to stop a river by installing a net...perhaps maybe closer to Trump's "building a wall" move politically.

Passing something without outlining any specs or plan on how they actually achieve their ends is very much the regular Conservative MO. I don't even nessisarily think they want it to pass it to be honest. I think they just want something that sounds easy to your regular joe but is fraught with practical and logistical issues so they can make the incumbent government look like it is obstructionist or morally bankrupt. If they actually passed this it would be a dog who caught the car senario but as is they know the incumbent government absolutely does not want to be on the hook for making a big messy new department that would take time off the floor for other issues while it's hashed out, require a massive expense to explore options and then further budget to create a government service in perpetuity all while their opposition gets to whine about how the incumbent government are too far over budget and too slow to get things done. The Conservatives know their constituents have the memories of goldfish and won't seriously ask why the things the Conservative party seemed to care about so much when they were opposition will be completely dropped when they are elected.

Drivebyhaiku , 6 months ago

One of the things about the trans masc experience. Nobody fucking questioned me playing as boy... ever. They were also still surprised Pikachu face when I came out as trans despite me dressing like a male poke-protagonist since the moment I got to choose my own clothes and not wear hand-me-downs.

I wholeheartedly wish to take a bat to the patriarchy so that our AMABs can finally be free and girl option is not looked at as some kind of innately less cool failure state. I hope future gens of humans will never need hesitate about what poke-protagonist they wanna be the very best like no one ever was with ...for any reason other than debating the preference of outfits.