Simple - one must strive not simply to be A shit but to be THE shit - The plutonic ideal of shit, the perfect shit from which all other shits are derivitive. Anything less is a failure. So following this logic.

“You ain’t shit” = You are invalid from the rubric, so below par as not to be mentionable.

“You are shit” = Acknowledgement that you are shit of average or middling status but with the implications that vast improvement is nessisary because you are still a failure.

“You are not the shit” = More directed pointed reminder that you are far below the goal of being THE shit and maybe are overestimating yourself.

That the tech has evolved to be better actually is an assumption. The novel data problem hasn’t been meaningfully addressed really at all so mostly we assume that progress has been made… but it’s not meaningful progress. The promises being made for future capability is mostly pretty stale hype that hasn’t changed year to year with a lot of the targets remaining unchanged. We are getting more data on where specifically and how it’s failing, which is something, but overall it appears to be a plateau of non-linear progress with different updates being sometimes less safe than newer ones.

That actually safe self driving cars might be decades away however is antithetical to the hype run marketing campaigns that are working overtime to put up smoke and mirrors around the issue.

I mean seeing how he has probably pissed off just about every theater kid living by now it’s just deserts. Nobody is racing down from the booth with a lav for this guy.

My Grandmother always called this sort of thing being a “red letter Christian”. Basically like you take a highlighter to everything Jesus specifically did or said and discard the rest.

My Mom’s family all followed this principle since like the 70’s thus saving my trans ass from any hint of intergenerationally inflicted religious trauma so I am a fan. My 92 year old great uncle went to bat to fight for non-binary gender accommodations in his seniors home because one of his nurses is an enby who was getting a raw deal from a number of their paitents. Honestly, though I don’t think the Christian God is what he says he is, his kid seems weird but as a rules for life kinda thing the results seem good. .

Can you blame the left? The dance of interfacing with Conservative rhetoric means constantly having to change up tactics under the assumption that the person doesn’t understand because the alternatives to that are that they either refuse to understand because they are selfish and want to be comfortable at the expense of other people’s safety… or because they do understand but they are creating scapegoats and targets for the deliberate harm of others because doing so gives them kickbacks or because they think those people are deserving of harm.

Believing they are being tricked or haven’t actually thought things through at least gives one the comfortable idea that one’s fellow man is not evil or indifferent to evil as long as they benefit. Right wingers think leftists are elitist and leftists hope that right wingers are dumb because being dumb is still better than being actually cruel.

Huh. So I imagined the ball on the table immediately as a colorless glass sphere on a white table. Before I even read the prompt to push the ball in my imagination I had already placed my index finger on the ball and was rolling it around it place like a fidgit so I just tapped the ball to push it with my index finger so the person who pushed the ball was me (non-binary) for reasons that I was already interacting with the ball anyway. I imagined this in the first person so I didn’t really see myself in full. The ball itself was baseball sized and rolled a short distance, stopped and wobbled after being pushed.

I didn’t think about what the table was made of but the ball itself was glass that was smooth and cold to the touch. The table was square, waist height and dining room table sized. The room these objects were in was featureless and visualization was instant upon reading.

A lot of the distinction of sex and gender gets muddied because as scientific evidence mounted about how blurry the lines between the sexes actually were “gender” ( not as we understand it in a modern queer context) started out as a construct that played fast and loose with phenotype and form to create a scientific construct of sex. It’s in part why gender is sometimes a synonym for sex because it was aiming to preserve a biological binary which was really falling apart.

However philosophy looked at that construct and elaborated on what they were seeing and realizing that we draw arbitrary cultural lines around these things so “gender performativity” theory tends to group gender as something you do.

However gender performativity theory doesn’t really cover what trans people experience. Basically, a lot of gender dysphoria is actually closer to the original use of gender. It involves people reacting to their physical bodies sex characteristics not falling in line with a sort of internal compulsion…so for a severely compressed example if I feel like everytime I am reminded through language that I do not conform to the physical features typical of the male phenotype I feel depressed, anxious and like essentially life has denied me something essential to me then I can backwards engineer that series of reactions to “I am a man / male”… Man might be a cultural category but the lack of the cultural category isn’t what is upsetting, it’s the social construct of woman drawing attention to the real problem of existing in my own body.

So where this gets culturally sticky is if someone insisting I am “female” it really is no different then misgendering. What’s often culturally happening is they are just trying to do it in a pseudo scientific way which is why people will call you out on it… Here’s where it gets complicated. Trans people are a group of people who are lay masters with personal experience of the malleable nature of physical sex and the science of sex. Since the people often trying to categorize us as “male and female” alone are not actually giving any kind of scientific specificity it’s not actually correct in a scientific biology based context so when we say you are wrong we usually don’t mean it on a strictly metaphysical axis. We mean, * that’s not how science uses those words*.

If I have been on testosterone a while and a couple of surgeries / or if I never went through a feminizing puberty at all I am going to fit more aspects of the male phenotype than female. I might have female chromasomal make up… but chromasomal makeup is only one facet of sex. If you wanted to be actually scientifically correct in regard to the “biological sex” of a trans person then you are going to have to take us on as individuals and that answer is going to be a lot more complicated than just rendering it down to “male” or “female”. From a strictly taxonomic perspective a lot of us have become intersex. We biologically fit a category that is beyond the male/ female binary… We just did so as a matter of using technology to achieve that end.

That is calculated I think… Having been stuck in forced proximity to Conservatives for awhile the party line is that Russia isn’t as bad as people make it out to be, Putin is a good guy, the left is constructing Russia as a boogey man when they do “so much right”.

Kamala I think is pretty adept at code switching. When dealing with Conservative audiences you pick your battles because if you trip too hard on one of their landmines where you have to go on a long fight to up end one of their propaganda efforts then chances are they stop listening to everything.

It’s what this person does. Check their post history and you will see how often they flog that specific piece of literature.

To be honest no… Because I think I violently expunged it from my memory and mind as my brain probably interpreted it as some kind of threat to my cells.

I read a bunch of those books because my roommate was in love with them. It established an idea of a writing flaw in my mind that I called “The Heirachy of Cool”. Basically the guy practically has an established character list of who is the coolest. Whichever character in any given scene is at the top of the hierarchy is mythically awesome. They have their shit together, they are functionally correct in their reasoning, they lead armies, they pull off grand maneuvers, they escape danger whatever…

But anyone below them in the Heirachy turn into complete morons who serve as foils to make the people above them seem more awesome whenever they share page time together. These characters seem to have accute amnesia about stuff that canonically happened very recently (in previous books) so they can complicate things for the hierarchy above, they usually make poor decisions due to crisises of faith in people above them in the hierarchy… But because that hierarchy is infallible it’s predictable. Less cool never is proven right over more cool.

… Until that same character is suddenly alone and they go from being mid of the hierarchy to the top and all of a sudden they have iron wills and super competence…

Once I caught onto that pattern it became intolerable to continue.

“The Cat Who Walked through Walls” by Robert Heinlein…

Now Heinlein is usually kind of obnoxiously sexist so having a book that opens with what appears to be an actual female character with not just more personality than a playboy magazine centerfold, but what seems like big dick energy action heroesque swagger felt FRESH. Strong start as you get this hyper competent husband and wife team quiping their way through adventures in the backwoods hillbilly country of Earth’s moon with their pet bonsai tree to stop a nefarious plot with some promised dimensional McGuffin.

Book stalls out in the middle as they end up in like… A swinger commune. They introduce a huge number of characters all at once alongside this whole poly romantic political dynamic and start mulling over the planning stage of what seems like a complicated heist plot. Feels a lot like a sex party version of the Council of Elrond with each of these characters having complex individual dramas they are in the middle of resolving…

Aaaand smash cut. None of those characters mattered. We are with the protagonist, the heist plan failed spectacularly off stage and we are now in his final dying moments where we realized that cool wife / super spy set him up to fail like a chump at this very moment for… reasons? I dunno, Bitches amirite?

First time I ever finished a book and threw it angrily into the nearest wall.

Do I detect a little Barbara Laslett and Johanna Brenner in there? Love the post, chef’s kiss!

Honestly don’t know about the specifics to verify or checked the sources but on first blush it feels pretty correct.

My mental situation is such that I have a very strong memory recall and approach learning pretty voraciously. Around topics I enjoy I build a sort of mental map to compare and recall things creating a sort of landscape of understanding over a wide range of topics. I pick up a lot of fabrication based tasks quickly in part because I’ve realized that my imagination renders things in full three dimensions allowing me to imagine builds in stages and troubleshoot at the concept stage… which as I have come to understand it isn’t ubiquitous for most people and is tied into the form of dyslexia I have.

All in all though it’s a pretty isolating experience being this way. I chose a career that is non academic and a lot of people at some point or another imply that it’s a “waste” of my mind. Some people react to me as a threat, as though I am judging them or showing off or lying about my interests or must be exaggerating the things I demonstrate some small mastery over. Listening to those who have known me over a long period of time describe me to other people is often sobering. While it’s often flattering the impression is that I am sort of a sort of wonderous jack of all trades eccentric who operates on a different scale of time than other people.

To experience it from my perspective though, I have a sense generally of the line where most people are likely to absorb or remember things and know from people’s reactions exactly how much of a weirdo I come across as when I step past that boundry. Neurodivergance is a neutral term, it just boils down to “a different brain”. The more different one is generally the harder it is for other people to intuit your needs. My experience with teachers in school is that I could understand as a child that the system of reporting progress required me to do things that I found intolerable so that essentially the system could report metrics back to measure things in a systemic way. But that system wasn’t serving me what would have been personally tolerable by actually challenging me and also didn’t particularly care about me as a person. I figured out that most of that scorecard was meaningless while I was beholden to the system. A number of teachers realized I was imbibing the lessons I just wasn’t playing the game and their reactions to that were often pretty sympathetic.

I wouldn’t worry quite so much… This whole last stand holding out through to the end of time kind of mentality isn’t generally true of most circumstances in the modern age. Governments, though not nessisarily legitimized on the world stage ones, tend to be pretty quick to reform so as long as you can wait out maybe a year on victory gardens, old clothes and dried and canned food you should be fine on most difficult to create items. That and since mass production has made sure there is a considerable surplus of regular everyday items like dishware learning how to source your own clay isn’t going to be much of an issue.

Governments have collapsed in the past and the militarized nature of the American citizenry is probably going to make it a unique problem. But like other places chances are any purge like times are going to be fairly short as it is generally been demonstrated that those antisocial behaviours tend to mean a lot of international compassionate humanitarian aid is witheld to those people and once order reasserts itself the bill tends to come due.

Chances are if the worst happens and you don’t treat your resources as worth making a grand last stand over you have a pretty good chance of making it out and once there’s a reconstruction effort then the requests made of you to do your bit will not be a lone wolf kind of senario.

Alberta adopted this model and saw an increase in public health wait times and a sharp increase in the required government spending required to run the public system.

Creating a two tiered system means that it bleeds doctors, nurses and admin into the private sector which is fundamentally at odds with the philosophy that everyone deserves the right to life sustaining care. If the rich want to dodge the cue then they can quite frankly afford the plane ticket. If the system is being undermined by politicians - oust the politicians. Let them know that that system is of the highest priority and should be first to see reinvestment.

But we should all be aware that Canada is one of the most challenging landscapes for delivery of any kind of health care. We are diffuse over a large landmass and the commitment to the system means that if you live in a remote place 2 hours away from the nearest surgery then the government is on the hook to spend an outsized amount of budget to uphold the commitment of care for you. The temptation to cut corners is always there and each Provincial trust is its own battleground. That we have the level of service we do is a credit to the efficacy of public health systems… Which means upping the costs to create competitive private sector development hurts us all.

It may be a step up for Americans to have any system at all as a right to health safety net but it’s a sharp step down for anywhere running a full public system.

On the next episode of “historical figures who were gay as fuck”… Leonardo Da Vinci.

That is actually one of the major issues at play. One of the kind of predatory things about right wing politics is it plays into a fallacy that the truth is simple, easily recognizable and can be rendered down into axioms a child can understand. Anything that doesn’t fall under these parameters cannot be the truth.

But science moved away from big axiomatic stuff like 50 years ago. It became the study of variation and nuance.

The left attempts to have a aspects of this simple explanation stuff in sections by adopting almost slogan-like things - take “Trans women are women” as an example. That easily digestible slogan sits on top of a whole bunch of consequentialist based philosophy, psychological research with a focus on harm reduction, a history of uphill public advocacy to just put trans issues on the radar and being trans itself isn’t easy to explain. It is simple and quippy - but not axiomatic. So a lot of people on the right tear into it as a target because the optics of defending a short quippy but nuance laden argument in slogan form while keeping it short and easily digestible is basically impossible.

This issue is throughout progressive political thought. Any short form word we use to describe practically anything has a whole swack of addendums, hidden complications, edge cases and multiple historical definitions. If you use very technical language you can be more specific but then you can easily talk over the heads of your audience.

Well… Short answer talking about “the left” and “the right” is effectively doing something called “constructing a public”. These are are not just political constructs, they are political constructs that do certain things. Neither of these constructs have hard boundaries and throughout time they shift.

But there is a distinct difference. When you look at the right, while the presentation changes they have a fairly straightforward citable group of guiding philosophy traceable through a small handful of writing. If you read Thomas Malthus and Edmond Burke they will sound like slightly more archaic versions of modern pundits on the right. When you listen to the modern pundits you will notice that they are very repetitive and what differentiates one from another is more or less just presentation style. That repetition of talking points changes it’s arguements but never it’s foundation. Since it’s mostly in service of protecting a status quo where hereditary privilege is upheld it doesn’t have to get complicated. It just has to justify the world as it has been and that humans are sneaky, fundamentally flawed and morally defunct but that by structuring society as a winnowing process where playing the game the rightful and just few will rise to the top.

But when you look at “the left” it’s not an easy gradient, it’s a loose scattering of little clusters of very different ideologies and guiding philosophies. Since it largely works of a guiding concept of dissolution of established aggregated personal fortunes and radical anti-supremacist framework of various forms it’s not uniform. There’s anti-colonialism, anti-racism, anti-monopolist, anti-capitalist, anti-discriminatory, pro-neurodiversity, expanded personal rights, pro public service, pro democratic and anti democratic groups, pro freedom of movement, anarchists, and acedemic political theorists each with individual theories about how to bring about a state of all these things when none of this has in living memory existed. It’s not generally trying to defend a status quo but trying to feild test different ways of doing things… So basically everybody and their dog has a slightly different opinion of what is a good idea.

It’s kind of hard to see " bad faith actors" as it were because any two leftists might have almost no ideological overlap as far as praxis. They might not see each other as being part of the same tribe even if outsiders looking in would classify them as “left” and they might all claim to be “left” themselves… It’s not that it’s contradictory, it’s that the branching paths of divergent evolving philosophies have rambled off in a whole bunch of different directions and effectively become whole other creatures entirely.

What is being silenced is Bigotry. What happens when you allow bigots to openly be bigots into a lot of spaces you make the place hostile to the targets of those bigots. It’s one philosophy of space moderation to create areas where bigots and bigotry does not immediately become the entire focus of a places ecosystem so those targeted communities have places they can participate where they are accepted as normal. Because if nobody chooses that option you as a target always have to approach socializing on the internet as a risk and comfort is always denied you.

It doesn’t have to be and usually isn’t every space. Within the left there is advocacy for “holding spaces” where people are allowed to be horrible so that they can be approached and taught, debated and if they show desires to be better, not treated hostility in the moment. But it is accepted that those spaces are not comfortable places for the targets of bigotry to dwell. It’s a dangerzone.

So please stop this “silencing” nonsense. Yes, moderation teams pick their intended level of anti-bigotry safety vs holding space mentality. Other places where bigots accrue unchanged exist. If you want to do outreach you can pick your venue from a wide selection.