Individualism

Individualism seems to already be taken. That's unfortunate, what else would you call someone who is opposed to context loading people based on trivia- such as: skin color, nationality, gender, beverage preference?

I propose any of the following: Smart, Not-Retarded, Genius, Brilliant, Asshole-but-Right, Smarter, Smartest, Smart-ist, Fucking Smart, okay? Do you get it, yet?

Branding is always a problem. Dawkins, for instance, proposes a branding of atheism similar to the context change of the label "gay" that came about in the 1980s and 90s. He's got a point, about changing contexts, and how it changes general reactions. It seems obvious, to me. (Just so we're clear: the adoption of "Brights" never seemed all that 'bright' to me.)

So, instead of adding another arbitrary label, I have found a new name for my ideal: people. Acceptable substitutes include "person", "persons", "human", "humans", "homo sapiens", et cetera.

I am a People. A Person. A human. And fuck you, you are too. Read More...

Why?

I've been reading a lot of feminist essays recently. I particularly look for things about feminism that are not about feminism itself. Ideally, feminism is simply about stopping oppression; and essays to that effect are easily agreeable. Essays about the modus operandi of feminism often frustrate, annoy, or anger me. I tend to agree with Post-feminist movements, rather than the so-called Second and Third Waves. I look for things like: Women in Refrigerators. This is, sort of, a discussion of what something may mean, if it means anything. It involves people's conceptions- projecting their thought processes. I find that interesting, and easier to remember as opinion.

I, also, actively seek discussion with non-professional feminists. I am, often, guilty of taunting them, which is bad manners- but nothing more. (Bad Manners is its own topic, for later). However, I run into a lot of elitism, faulty logic, basic philosophy, credulity, and ignorance.

For instance: (from WiR, linked above, Joan Hilty's Response):
You only need to have the faintest grasp of feminist or semiotic theory to know that it's not just how often [death, sexual abuse, and other heinous acts against woman-kind is] done, it's HOW it's done and TO WHOM certain things are done. The sexually violent visual language of how these women get killed is remarkably consistent. Really, the larger reality is that American mainstream comics, built by guys for guys on the crumbling foundations of superhero fantasy, remain intensely hostile to women, consciously and subconsciously. As political and cultural landscapes shift and evolve worldwide and it gets harder and harder for white guys to retain their perceived right to run the world, you can see the frustration act itself out in various forms of hideous backlash -- everything from "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" to Katma Tui.

I didn't know I had a right to run the world because I was white and a guy! Fuck, how do I get in on that right, failing though it may be? Did I get left out by being poor and raised in a highly matriarchal family? Shit! Fucked again, by circumstance and conspiracy!

Logical Fallacies, first: Loaded Words. Begging the Question. Straw Man. Others, but I'll limit myself to dealing with those.

Loaded Words: More like loaded phrases: "sexually violent" "these women" "consciously and subconsciously" "white guys" "right to run the world"

Are all deaths of female characters, in comics, sexually violent? And when they are, what percentage of those incidents are relevant to the story? (That is: When is it important that the character was killed/hurt in a sexually violent matter?) That's important because it'd be pretty hard to talk about rape, in the visual medium of comics, without using some "sexually violent visual language".

Are fictional characters really the same as "women"? Don't get me wrong, the treatment of fictional characters can reveal underlying psychological phenomena- I won't argue that. However, let us NEVER forget that "these women" are not real, have never been real, and do not resemble real individuals.

"White guys" is the favorite loaded word of the "oppressed minority" in America. Apparently, "white guys" are the only people capable of oppressing other people. Are comics dominated by "white guys" because of this "white guy" conspiracy to continue ruling the world? ("White guys" are the minority of persons in power throughout history, just so we're clear). Or is this simply inspiring our reflexive, media-reinforced, stereotype of old power hungry white oppressors from an era when people of different shading used different water fountains?

As a "white guy" I can say that neither me, nor any of my other "white guy" friends, have ever mistakenly thought we had a "right to run the world". Those times when, as I think everyone does, we discussed what we'd do if we DID run the world, reasoning for our rule wasn't often discussed. When that reasoning was discussed, it was never proposed that shading had anything to do with it. This is intended to shock and dismay the reader. "How could anyone think they have the right to run the world!?!"

Loaded words/phrases are there to play on the fears, insecurities, and stereotypes of the audience. They carry heavy emotional connotation. For instance: Who needs logic when you can just scare people into believing? The phrase "scare people into believing" sounds as if their choice was taken away from them and they were forced to believe.

The Straw Man is that this is all part of the conspiracy of "white guys" to perpetuate their "right to run the world". The other members of the "white guy" conspiracy have told me to assure you that NO such conspiracy exists.

(some of) The Begged Questions:
--"have the faintest grasp of feminist or semiotic theory"... Uhm...How does semiotics work into this? General Semantics? Semantics? Syntactics? Nevermind, I'll skip that bit. Why would we only need a faint grasp? Forget that, too, though. The biggest question is: Which type of feminist theory? (Post-, Second Wave, Third Wave, Other?)
--"it's HOW it's done and TO WHOM certain things are done"... Why only "certain things"? Do other "certain things" negate the first "certain things"? Most importantly, what is the generic algorithm for detection? What about "HOW it's done" reveals negative things about the "How"? What about "TO WHOM it's done" reveals negative things? Why? How?

This is just an example, of course. I think it illustrates the elitism- by denigrating one group to elevate the status of another. The faulty logic is often due to the ignorance of what logical fallacies are, and how to avoid them. The basic philosophy is that "feminism" is always a good thing because it promotes the "freeing" of an oppressed minority. However, I maintain that it does so at the expense of another group- technically the minority (just a technicality I think of as funny, not relevant). [This is different than the fight versus racism because everyone is of some "race" or another; while not everyone is female.] The credulity is many-fold: belief in a male-conspiracy, belief that anyone who opposes feminism is a misogynist, so on and so on.

This is why I oppose the furthering of "feminism"; because I think it's time we stop categorizing all the bullshit. It's time we stop fighting for this little thing or for that little thing. It's time we stop implying shit with labels. Feminism will never gain true equality without fighting the distinction in words like: "Mother" and "Father", "She/Her/Hers" and "He/Him/His". It's time to fight the context, not the language. Individualism is my theory of hating people based on their unique, individual, attributes. So what that he's Iraqi? Does he believe in bullshit? Who cares that she's a "she"? Is she a body-conscious, morally obligated, prude? There are better reasons to hate people than because of some bullshit "race" or they're a certain gender.

And trying to "rid the world of hate" is the dumbest fucking thing, ever! Read More...

Individualism, a Musing

Individualism is my new banner. Not the Individualism of Anarchy. Not the Individualism of Morality and Philosophy.

Recently, I've found myself rather disgusted with some groups. Feminists, Gay\Lesbian\Transgendered Activists, Anti-racists, and Anti-Discrimination-ists, in general. They seem rather myopic, in general; and so many seem out right hypocritical. It's sad, to me, that such noble causes are so easily dismissed because of their own bullshit.

I, as a "straight white male", am told that I am an oppressor. When I respond to hate and vitriol with hate and vitriol I am marginalized, dismissed, and generally ignored. Whatever happened to: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander"? Why the focus on labeling others, when fighting against the negative labels? Blatant Hypocrisy is stupid, childish, and- often- a sign of fallacy.


I propose getting rid of the bullshit. Destroying the crap. Admitting the objective reality, and general destruction of the myopic stupidity. There should never be a discussion of "race". It should never be a discussion about "sex". Who cares if you practice an "alternative lifestyle"? (No one should).

Everything should be about the individual. Some people are complete shit, not a redeeming quality about them. This is not something to be afraid of, it is something to be acknowledged. If a person is shitty, they should be labeled such and dealt with as such. They shouldn't be labeled shitty because their skin color is different; because of who they want to squat hump; or because they have a different set of sex chromosomes.

Each Individual should stand or fall on their own merits and flaws. Each Individual should be respected as different from all others. Most generalities concerning people, are wrong- no matter who's the target.


Are all "African Americans" "black"? Nope. Ever been to Egypt? What about 3d generation "white" South Africans who are recent immigrants?

Are all Frat Boys sexist idiot rapists? Nope. Go to a campus, talk to every single one- alone.
Rape is far too common in the United States; but if every Frat Boy was a rapist, it would be worse than the most liberal estimates.

Are all poor people lazy and/or stupid? Nope. There are many examples of famous thinkers who died unappreciated and penniless. George Orwell comes to mind, immediately; even if he may not be the best example.

Are all religious people simple-minded idiots incapable of grasping simple logic, credulity, or knowledge? Yes. Not every group is immune to criticism.

More importantly, there is a skeptical conceit of "the sacred cow". The sacred cow being something that is highly dubious, but still hard to be unemotional about and hard to give up on completely. It's okay that everyone isn't perfect. It's fine that some people are epic fails.

Individualism, then, is my idea for a realistic, unadorned, call for the destruction of discrimination- in all its forms. The acknowledgment of difference only in individuals. The breaking down of self-discrimination, and the building up of acceptance for the non-perfect other.


I am not an Irish-American Man nearing 30. I am a human. I happen to be male. I happen to live in the United States of America. I happen to be spawned from people who were spawned from people in Ireland, once upon a time. I happen to be 27, currently. I also, as it happens, need to piss and prefer sweet iced tea over most other non-alcoholic beverages. None of those facts means anything more about me than any of the others. Read More...