AgentW_C

4

AgentW_C wrote

A good point. The definition of Civilization has been an oft-shifting idea, once that has led to the sufferings of indigenous peoples and so-called primitive peoples.

If we define civilization as having a massive system of hierarchy and city-states that consume a massive amount of resources, then most Native Americans or hunter-gatherer groups in general, don't qualify.

But, if we define civilization as a group of people who live near each other and share similar beliefs regarding life and the world in general, then nearly every group qualifies, including native groups, a fact which fills many First-Worlders with horror.

Heck, you can make a case that Native Americans or indigenous peoples are actually more civilized, since, for the most part, they had been able to live a long time where they were, without irrevocably poisoning their environment. Despite the "nasty, brutish, and short" meme people circulate about their cultures, the vast majority lived overall longer, happier lives before European cultures tried to "civilize" them. Other tribes would go to war with each other, but it was hardly on the scale of European cultures.

Sorry to keep using the phrase, European Cultures, but they have played the lion's share in the destruction of native peoples. In order to include cultures like Imperial Japan and the like, I should probably use the term "Industrial Civilization," but really, the most accurate term is "One-Size-Fits-All Civilization." At some point, we decided there was only one way people could live and that toxic meme has been destroying people ever since.

2

AgentW_C wrote

It's one of the basic rules I have, regarding life: Those who go on about how they tell it like it is and they don't care about being PC or what those SJWs think, will invariably turn out to be the most thinned-skinned motherfuckers ever when faced with actual criticism.

2

AgentW_C wrote

A post to give you a thumbs up and show support. I freely admit that I am a cis asexual female, but I have considerable experience with bullying and I know very much what bullying is like, what it's like to constantly deal with people verbally abusing you for being who you are.

The extent of my physical abuse involved guys kicking my shins, snatching up my stuff and playing keep-away, or that a-hole who dropped stuff down the front of my shirt. That doesn't mean I can't sympathize with those who have experienced worse, because if you have to go through something bad to know that it is bad, you are kind of a horrible person with a poorly-developed sense of empathy. For the record, that advice they give you, "Just ignore them" and "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," it's all BS.

As said before, I cannot think of any so-called other causes to bring up. Really Bink's argument smells like "Now can we have a calm discussion about what LGBT people are inferior" mealymouthed bullshit. Because it just all comes back to societal issues; it's the massive black hole at the center of nearly everything related to the problems of LGBT people.

LGBT kids are more likely to be kicked out of the house, after which, they wind up on the streets, which usually increases the odds of them winding up in the sex trade or getting a substance addiction, either of which doesn't come with a long life span attached.

They also have to deal with, like I said before, people who see them as, at best, a disease, at worst, an abomination unto the Lord. That would obviously cause considerable psychological stress, which would account for why they have the highest suicide rate of any minority group. Stress also takes a physical toll on someone. Due to societal stigma, LGBT tend to wind up living in poverty, which makes it so they have a harder time getting proper health care. It also doesn't help that there are physiological issues that LGBT people experience that Straight people don't. This combined with a mistrust of doctors (which is somewhat justified, given the experiences quite a few have with them), means that they tend to die younger of easily-preventable causes.

And they are also statistically more likely to be the victim of a hate crime than any other minority groups and unlike many minority groups, lawyers can still use the Gay Panic defense or the Trans Panic defense, making it so the victim winds up being responsible for their own assault and/or murder. The Gay Panic defense is on its way out, but the Trans Panic defense still has some legs, seeing as many forms of entertainment still portray transgender women as a source of horror and disgust.

The tl;dr, what other causes, besides societal stigma, are there to explain the short life expectancy of LGBT people?

8

AgentW_C wrote

Just see it as humans have been trapped and imprisoned in an unnatural system that punishes our good traits and rewards our bad ones, that leaves them so warped and twisted and stressed from trying to fit into a One-Size-Fits-All system that doesn't fit anyone, that they've become something unnatural.

Because for all the talk about "But human nature!" the vast majority of studies done show that we are generally wired to take care of each other. In the wake of a disaster, usually we manage to organize ourselves and we do what we can to take care of each other. Chances are, if some apocalyptic disaster were to come to pass, we'd still do the same. We may blunder and flail around at first, because all this is scary and new, but eventually, we'll settle down, organize, and rebuild.There's a natural good core that has been bent and buried under so much BS, yet at the same time, it cannot be destroyed entirely.

As for those so warped and twisted that the natural good core has corroded and disappeared entirely, remember that they are a minority. If we do our part to stand against them and sabotage them however we can. We can sabotage them in big ways, but often in small ones as well, first by refusing to accept their simplistic, reductionist view of humanity and the world.

In times like these, hope becomes a radical act, not the Pollyanna kind of hope, but the real, active kind. The Powers That Be want you to throw up your hands and give up, want you to agree that this is how it has to be and there can't be anything different. Hope is a radical act, saying that we are better than this, we can do better than this, and we will do better than this.

6

AgentW_C wrote

Ignoring societal issues feels like...I was going to make some remark about the elephant in the room, but this is so massive and obvious an issue that it transcends rooms and elephants entirely.

I'm trying to think what other possible issues and causes you could be considering. Your words feel like a mealy-mouthed way of saying, "Now, now, can't we just consider the possibility that LGBT people are inherently flawed and discuss this like civilized human beings."

I'm really shaking my head at the fact you believe that constantly facing threats on their lives for being who they are or being ostracized for who they are, from the wider culture doesn't completely explain the problems facing LGBT people. I'm fairly certain that if I was part of a demographic where I am seen, at best, as a disease and at worst, an abomination, that would have egregious effects on my psychology and maybe make me more likely to kill myself.

1

AgentW_C wrote

I don't claim to be a biologist or an expert on chimps, but I wonder how accurate its quote about chimpanzee social structures is. We've been through this before with wolves. For years they were stigmatized in much the same way with the Alpha Male being seen as the posturing strutting bully. The dynamics popular culture associates with wolves, were mostly seen in groups of unrelated wolves in captivity. Studies of actual packs in the wild show that wolf packs are mostly family groups with the dynamics of one.

As for the Alpha Male wolf, as this article puts it:

“The main characteristic of an alpha male wolf,” the veteran wolf researcher Rick McIntyre told me as we were watching gray wolves, “is a quiet confidence, quiet self-assurance. You know what you need to do; you know what’s best for your pack. You lead by example. You’re very comfortable with that. You have a calming effect.”

The point is, alpha males are not aggressive. They don’t need to be. “Think of an emotionally secure man or a great champion. Whatever he needed to prove is already proven,” he said.

I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't something similar regarding chimpanzee alpha males. Nature is red in tooth and claw, but when it comes to pack animals, often altruism gets you further than bullying. How well would a family group do if it was constantly attacking and tearing each other apart.

Though if we're talking about the stereotypical one note view popular culture has of Alpha Males, then Trump ticks off ever trait on the list.

3

AgentW_C wrote

I'm with you. The shoplifting and salvaging bits I can understand, but leaving a restaurant without paying just screws over the wait staff and those in the kitchen and they're already getting screwed enough. Chances are the corporate office that owns the restaurant, has no problem with cutting hours or firing employees to save on the bottom line, and the fired employees will be ones who are already struggling to stay afloat on poverty-level wages.

4

AgentW_C wrote

I don't know. I'd kind of want to know what kind of revolution would come about. After all, while a revolution is needed, they seldom go off as cleanly in real-life as they do in fiction. Often what happens is you take out one bad guy, only to pave the way for someone even worse, or in other words, the Russian Revolution outcome: overthrow the tyranny of the Czar, only to wind up with Stalin. Any revolution that comes about, will probably always have to be fought to protect it from slimy opportunists who'd want to warp it to their own ends.

Though to answer the question, what kind of monster would I be if I believed that my life was more valuable than the greater number of lives, current and future, who would be saved by the revolution? So tl, dr; my answer is Yes. I just brought up all the stuff in the previous paragraph because it's something I do often, muse about the nature of revolution.

4

AgentW_C wrote

That's about how I feel about the whole "Human Nature" meme. While there may be traits inherent to us humans, at the same the "But human nature!" argument is more often used by assholes to justify assholish policies that run over the rights and lives of other people.

Plus, the idea that humans are inherently violent brutes, really doesn't hold up. Everyone goes on and on about how if there's a disaster, we'll have all these panics and riots, but with every natural disaster, what happens is that the vast majority of people do what they can to look after each other and help each other out. There are a few bad seeds who do some rioting, but they are few and far between. Most research shows that humans are generally wired for altruism; we are wired to be kind to each other and help each other out.

Agriculture on a massive scale didn't really take off until ten thousand years ago, yet Homo sapiens have been around for about fifty thousand years. If we were inherently violent and unstable and needed a massive State to make us be good and not hurt each other, how did we managed to survive for forty thousand years without it? Surely we would have wiped ourselves out ten times over.

1

AgentW_C wrote

There's some interesting stuff in there. From what I can tell, ideology should never be entirely fixed, forever frozen in stone. It should be something akin to military strategy where if the original plan isn't working and efforts to salvage it, have either failed or would cost more lives than it would save, they change up what needs to be changed up.

For those of you not particularly fond of military metaphors, think of it as like water, continually in flux, shaping itself to the environment around itself, but in doing so, it manages to make the environment bend to it.

3

AgentW_C wrote

The first one is particularly worth noting. People are always saying Anarchists should go somewhere, find some land, and establish their own communities where they can run things how they like, but the trouble is, the State isn't just going to let you take over some patch of land, even if no one is using it. You will have to pay money to the state to purchase it and to keep it.

Also, for those who keep saying, "Go somewhere else," one, we have pretty much run out of places to go; nearly all property is in the hands of someone and again, can't just take it over and start farming it, even if we wanted to.

Secondly, we would still be affected by actions of the State and massive corporations. It doesn't matter if you voted against a specific politician or if you refuse to shop from a massive corporation, toxic run-off will still pollute your land and water, regardless of your personal views. Same goes for air pollution as well. The State has spread to the point where there isn't a place on Earth where its affects aren't felt.

3

AgentW_C wrote

Y'know the type of guy Trump or, well, just about anyone on the Right is: even though they control all three branches of government, can buy the world ten times over, and live a lifestyle that would be the envy of a French monarch, they feel that they are the most persecuted creatures on God's Green Earth and when it comes to suffering for the sins of humanity, they've got Jesus beat.

3

AgentW_C wrote

I'm with you. The only reason Capitalism has been able to stay afloat as long as it has, was that until recently, there were always new lands to expand to, with new resources to exploit. When Europe was used up, they could go to the Americas and devour the resources there. Capitalism has no choice but to keep expanding. It is centered around the idea of infinite growth, even though infinite growth is impossible. Just as if you constantly gobble up chocolate cake, you will eventually run out of chocolate cake, you gobble up resources, you will run out of resources.

Capitalism is teetering now because there are no longer any places for it to expand to; it has effectively taken over every square inch of real estate in the world. Right now, it's trying to keep the game going a little while longer by cannibalizing itself, devouring other capitalist nations, but there are obvious flaws with that strategy.

Capitalism will eventually fall, but things will get much worse before it does and when it does, well, we can only hope they'll be enough of this world left to salvage.

1

AgentW_C wrote

If given a choice between celebrating the accomplishments of women or a man who brutally killed several women, of course, they'd opt for the serial killer. I am currently shaking my head and rubbing my temples at all this. Of all the fictional apocalypses, the one depicted in James Tiptree, Jr.'s "The Screwfly Solution" may be the most likely. I don't have too much difficulty believing if that plague were to come to pass, the pundits would be on TV patiently explaining that women are overreacting when they say that large scores of them are being murdered for being women and this is indicative of some deep-rooted hatred towards their gender.

In short, bravo to the protestors. Acknowledge the suffragettes, acknowledge the history of working class resistance, acknowledge the East End's fight against fascist blackshirts. The only reasons to have a museum dedicated to Jack the Ripper is born out of a desire for sensationalism, cheap shock value, and this culture's profound hatred towards half of its population, aka women.

Fuck that museum, indeed.