Sticks and stones or AR-15s?

 

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones" - Albert Einstein

We've come a long way. From the almost bipedal creature that could only get as far off the ground as the highest tree it could climb, to the above the clouds 30.000 feet birds of steel taking us faster and farther than our ancestors could possibly fathom.

And yet, we are still the same as those poor, frightened, monkey-like cave dwellers that fear the lightning and the subsequent crash of thunder that had the first storytellers invent magical beings fighting in the skies or punishing us for our trespasses.

It is amazing and baffling to me how much we've changed yet how we are still the same when we let our so-called leaders govern us by fear. Fear of poverty, fear of internal or external enemies (be it real or imagined), fear of communism, of terrorism, of our neighbors, of our own friends and family.

The best example are the United States of America. The recent streak of mass shootings had (yet again) cracked open the proverbial can of worms about gun ownership regulation and the adulated second Amendment.

I have recently and rather uncharacteristically got involved in a thread on Twitter (yes, I guess I'm that old) where people were quick to attack anyone who remotely suggested that more safeguards should be put in place in order to have a stricter control on who is actually fit to own a gun and has a good reason to ask such a permit.

One of the most absurd reasons that I've read was that this was the only way to protect the citizens from dictatorship as well as from FOREIGN INVADERS.

Now let's take each of those arguments (apart) and see if they make any sense.

First off, I don't believe there has been any moment in the rather short history of the New World where Americans had to put up with any form of totalitarianism. Meanwhile, slavery, on the other hand, doesn't seem to register anywhere or bear any relevance in all this discussion, though.

To me, saying that it's because of said guns that there has been no dictatorship, reminds me of a joke about a guy who was gently tapping his fingers on a table. When asked what he was doing, he simply replied: "I'm scaring off tigers". "But I don't think there are any tigers around here", the other one said. "See how effective my method is?", the first one concluded.

My point is fear isn't rational, preparing for something doesn't necessarily mean it's the reason why it's not happening. People need to trust the system and its institutions, rather than taking matters into their hands.

Moving on to the ridiculous assumption that it's civilian gun owners that scare off any potential enemy from invading the US makes me literally laugh out loud. It's so preposterous I can't even begin to imagine how somebody could even come up with such nonsense.

If there's anything that keeps those real or make-belief enemies at bay, I'm sure it has nothing to do with the nuclear capacities and impressive armed military forces that we hear about and see on TV. No, it's the bazooka and AR-15 rednecks who need to wear weapons when they go shopping at Toys'R'us, just in case a toddler decides to deploy a WMD in the middle of the mall.

It's pathetic, is what it is! Those proud boys (and they really are afraid , little boys) are so out of touch with reality that they actually think they are safer carrying those guns without even realizing how they're doing nothing but reinforcing everybody's fears of gun-related violence.

There's just one more thing I'd like to say on this matter: there's no middle ground with these people. Stricter gun control equals no gun ownership of any kind among civilians (which would actually not be that bad, but don't let them hear you saying that).

But it's in their nature to overreact like this. How else could you explain that in a country that has (to my knowledge) never had an actual international conflict on its soil fears so much an invasion that it feels the need to wear assault weapons just for a coffee run?

Meanwhile mass shootings happen because almost anybody can procure a gun (and not just through illegal means) and all the American people do is either ignore them or actually use it to justify the need for even MORE weapons. Cause who doesn't want their kindergarten have armed guards or teachers, right?

And it really is all about perception. I remember the first time I saw military in the streets in France, just patrolling with their automatic weapons on display. My first reaction was: what's going on?! Why do we need armed soldiers to guard us? My sister-in-law, who had been living there for years didn't spare them a second glance and simply stated "I actually feel safer knowing they're here to protect us".

I guess I've said my piece, except this: I think I've heard it in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine that in America more people die in shootings a year than in all other countries combined. I've recently been made aware by a gun supporter it was (no longer?) true to our days and that in Mexico alone there are more deaths. To people like him, I only want to ask you this: what happened to that great America, that made it stoop so low as to compare itself with a drug cartel infested country?

I guess any argument will do as long as it allows gun totting lunatics to keep their guns that their children eventually use to (accidentally) shoot themselves or their teachers and colleagues.

Sounds to me like the only invasion force that they should fear is not even at their thresholds, but in their very homes.

In conclusion, I leave you with this: there's nothing worse that anybody in the world can do to Americans that they aren't already doing or have done to themselves.

 

Free speech is DEAD, long live Cancel Culture!

 "So, a mistake is made, a word is spoken out of turn, a cultural norm is broken, and all is fair in the pursuit of cancelling this person, erasing them off the face of the earth, banishing them to a world of shame and regret." - Aysha Taryam, first Middle Eastern female Editor-in-Chief of an English language newspaper

It wasn't that long ago that people (you know, regular people like you and me) were able to express themselves however they chose fit on almost whatever subject they chose (except Islam related topics maybe) and all they risked was some heated debate that is until Godwin's law choked the life out of it. 

But that's no longer the case. Nowadays, before posting an article or a comment or even when talking in public, we are forced to censure ourselves or at least think twice before even daring to write such post, let alone publishing it. And yes, that's a bad thing.

I mean sure, there are those who speak before they think and those who think too long and never get a chance to speak, but either way, they should be free to do so and if their opinion goes against what popular belief tells us what is right, then all anybody has to do is engage in a conversation with that person and let the one with stronger arguments or better formed ideas win, or, in case of a stalemate, it can also be acceptable to agree to disagree.

But I won't beat around the bush anymore and, with or without your permission, will cut to the chase. What I'm talking about is the LGBTQ+ community and how they choose to weaponize Cancel Culture.

Yeah, I've said it. With all the courage of the pseudo-anonymity of my blog and my (not so?) clever pseudonym & blog address.

I'm all for free speech and I'm all for people defending their points of view, but bringing the possibility of being cancelled into a debate is like bringing a nuclear weapon to a fist fight. And why, pray tell, should one be cancelled for expressing their personal opinions? Because they're wrong? So what?! I believe it's already been said, but if we had cancelled everyone who's ever expressed an opinion contrary to the popular belief, on one hand it would mean we lived in totalitarianism (which is sort of opposite to inclusiveness isn't it, my oppressing friends?) and on the other hand, we risked missing some valid points, as outlandish as they may sound right now.

Let's go even more into detail with this unfair battle of the wits and take a real world example: the attempted cancellation and social media assassination of one J.K. Rowling. You know, that lady with the books that sold in millions of copies and produced a very successful movie franchise. 

So here's what I got from that whole debacle: that lady reacted to someone who used the expression "people who menstruate" to describe women (born as women). She ridiculed said expression and I fully stand by her.

Nobody said that we can't find better words or expressions to describe people who are transitioning or who are already fully fledged transgender if they feel like the current terms are pejorative or downright insulting. But why do we have to reinvent the wheel for something that NOBODY asked for as far as normal (yes, I've said it: NOR-MAL) people are concerned? Why does this newly formed community feel the need to label the rest of the population as cisgender, people who menstruate and so on and so forth? Especially since, to my understanding, "cisgender" is most often used in a pejorative context e.g. look at this white, cisgender motherfucker acting like he's the one being discriminated.

Which bring me to yet another point: why is it that if I'm a Caucasian heterosexual (look at that, there already is a non-derogatory term for my sexual orientation - who would've thought?) man I seem to be absolutely immune to being discriminated against? Not saying this happens every day or at least as often as people in the LGBTQ+ (damn, I'm going to get a cramp from writing this acronym and I know that + saves me the hassle of writing at least 2-3 more letters), but at least it should be factored in as a possibility.

But getting back to the point I was trying to make. From that sarcastic tweet from J.K.R., all hell broke loose. People were outraged about this heterosexual woman (born a woman) daring to challenge an expression that imposed something on her and every other woman as being offensive to this "just give me a reason" social media mob. 

And here I'd like to take a moment and clarify something: I KNOW that the LGBTQ+ community isn't represented by these digital pitchforks and torches wielding permanently-hurt-offended-and-triggered-by-anything-they-perceive-as-going-against-their-own-narrative-or-belief-system maniacs. But, unfortunately, they are the loudest and almost omnipresent (thank...whomever that none of these dimwits are standing next to me while I am writing these lines).

And then the harassing and TERF (look it up, I didn't invent it) name-calling began. A little more down the road, the death threats started to appear and even went as far as posting pictures taken in front of her home, with her real address in full view for any psychopath with delusions of becoming famous to find and use as they saw fit. That's low, people, real low. And talk about escalating. Can anyone even explain how anyone could possibly equate a sarcastic tweet to endangering someone's life? No, nobody could. Not even the greatest minds of all time could fathom such an absurdity.

And again: why? Because this lady refused to cave in, or take it lying down. She stuck to her arguments and she persevered in tweeting and talking about HER beliefs and promoting feminism. Actually, I've just realized the story began even earlier when she had posted something about how children should be protected from some new legislation that allows them to begin transitioning from smaller ages and even without their own parents' knowledge.

Why wouldn't their parents be included in that discussion? Because they risk not approving? So what? There are all these legal levers that one can use if they really want to go ahead and change their gender, like emancipation. Oh, they may be to young for that? Then why would they have the right to take such a life-changing and extreme measure by themselves? We allow parents to decide for them when it comes to drinking alcohol or what school they go to, which nobody will dare say are more important than transitioning, but we can't trust they will take into account their children's wishes and arguments and offer them counterarguments and help them realize what is real and what is manipulation?

Also, it seems to me that some of these activists intentionally blur the lines between gender, sex orientation and plain being weird. Just to add more to the confusion and possibly being able to call others ignorant for not being able to distinguish between all these neologisms. And yes, one more time, I've said it: weird. When and where did it start being normal for a heterosexual man (born a man) to wear women's clothing and make-up in public? No, sorry, I'm all for living your life the way you see fit, but some things simply aren't normal and in such a case, you definitely should seek help.

Let me also say that I am happy and proud that after so many years of struggles and loss of life (either due to suicide, abuse or botched surgical interventions), our medical system has reached the level where a person who was born a boy or a girl but feels like their gender is wrong can go ahead and right that wrong and be at peace with themselves. For those people I say: good for you and I celebrate.

I am also for people being gay (homosexuals or lesbians), it's really not for me to say how they get their pleasure, just as it's not up to them to say what I do in my bedroom is right or wrong.

That being said, here is where I draw the line regarding gender and sex orientation: 

• you are either man, or woman, or transitioning, you can't be both (unless you were born hermaphrodite) and you can't be neither. So this whole "they/them" story is nonsensical as far as I'm concerned. Besides, the English language already has a neutral gender albeit reserved for objects and animals: "it". They/them sounds like you are suffering from a schizophrenic disease, so yes, it is ridiculous to me both in form and content.
• having the feeling of being a woman trapped in a man's body or vice-versa is NOT a disease and, thankfully, you can now have surgery to correct that, however, being a heterosexual man wanting to dress as a woman and put on make-up, is and you should get that checked out. There are professionals willing to help, I'm sure.
• as long as your physical gender isn't changed, one shouldn't be able to use the other gender's restrooms, be sent to that other gender's prisons or participate in the other gender's competitions. In fact, as far as that last one is concerned, you shouldn't be able to compete in those events anyway. Just because you were born with the wrong sex organs, doesn't mean that your body isn't that of a male's so winning a women's competition is just like cheating, while losing at such an event should be just as humiliating. And "gender-neutral" toilets already exist too, I'm sorry to say, but they're called "unisex", so instead of demanding a third restroom in schools or wherever, why not join the two existing ones into one, big, inclusive unisex restroom?
  
• just because you find yourself being a member of the LGBTQ+ community, doesn't give you the right to judge what anyone else says about it, nor do you get to be jury and executioner of cancelling that person or group.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: com'on, people, let's be reasonable and let's distinguish between mental disease and actual problems that may or may not be fixed by modern medicine. And if you don't agree with what someone has to say, all you have to do is disagree and start a conversation. This is what bothers me the most: when you are cancelling someone, there is no communication and it's that lack of communication that often complicates and aggravates the situation.

You don't have to agree with me or anyone else and we definitely don't have to all be friends, but just remember what I wrote earlier: if we can't reach a consensus, we can always politely agree to disagree and move on with our lives, it doesn't have to become this inescapable drama that some like to wallow in.

Let me also just say that I strongly disagree with discrimination in its many forms and I am firmly against any type of violence towards any of these people - because no matter what some extremist may say, they are people - and I wouldn't hesitate to defend them should I witness it in the street. But harassment is harassment, and violence is violence and I will not stand for people from the gay community harassing others because they don't agree with their opinions.

That's it. I've said my piece. 

So here I am, now cancel me!

 

(Belated from 2020) We are living wondrous times

 

I'm sure most people reading this will quickly assert that this article is about the current Coronavirus/Covid-19/Sars-Cov-2 pandemic, but you would be wrong.

Reading an article about actress/actor Elle/Elliot Page today has triggered something inside of me. I have taken an interest in Elle's acting career since she starred in Juno, I think. Then went back a little and enjoyed "Freaks and geeks".

I've read/heard she was a lesbian, which didn't surprise me that much a few years a go. In fact, I was more like "good for her", she's finally found herself!

Now I read this article about her saying she's transgender and identifies as being (mostly - if I understand this correctly, as being a "he"). 

What really titillates me about this (besides an interesting actress potentially becoming an interesting actor) is the fact that we, as a human species, have reached the stage where we can try and correct some of nature's mistakes ourselves.

We are no longer left with few choices ranging from living our whole lives "in the closet" to actually committing suicide, but we can become what we feel we were born to be.

Make no mistake, I am not saying that this is easy. From a social standpoint down to the medical/physiological point of view. It's not easy changing gender. I get that. But it is nonetheless truly amazing that we've reached the stage where a person who is aware of their misalignment with their gender has the choice to surgically become what their mind tells them they should be and, consequently, live the lives they feel they were meant to.

No more depression. No more stigma (mostly). No more regrets.

This, for me at least, is the future I'd like to live in.

For me, a transgender person is just someone who was lucky enough to have the means and opportunity to make their body follow suit to what they feel.

I, however, don't feel the need to label them as transgender. For me, a person who physically changes sex becomes that new gender. It doesn't really matter what they were before in the present.

I do make a distinction regarding their physical gender in the timeline though. As far as I am concerned, whatever gender you were born with, that's what you were up until the time you yourself realized that you were really meant to be.

So Bruce Jenner was a guy who won the  Olympics, even though a few years ago, that guy ceased to exist and Caitlyn Jenner emerged (even before the actual sex change operation).

To my limited understanding of this phenomenon, it is physically much easier to switch from male to female, so if the technology/surgery hasn't really caught up with us evolving as a species yet, it doesn't mean it's less than or not as. 

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that even though I am not concerned personally by this topic, I am grateful to be living these times when we can bend nature's will and correct it's flaws in order to live the fullest lives we can, in the bodies we feel we were meant to live in.

No one should be forced to live inside a body that feels strange to them, especially if they have a chance to change that!

I'll tell you one more thing too: anyone willing to risk their lives to live they're future the way they feel they were meant to deserves nothing but respect and even an amount of awe.
#notransgender #nocisgender #justhuman