Problems With The World 2

It's really disturbing how much hate there is in communities, especially online where it is too easy to hide behind an anonymous persona. I recently checked out the Pink Dot 2015 video and scrolled down to a cacophony of religious banter and also a pile of dislikes.

The moment you fight people with hate, is the moment you lose.

My second piece of this series is composed of 26000+ pink rounded pixels. Independently, they are just a dot in a sea of other coloured pixels, but together they can form anything the same way pixels on our screens give birth to possibilities. Colosians 3:14 (NIV): "And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity."

Problems With The World 1

I stole the original from Hustle & Grind without their permission, but I'm not gonna profit from this anyway so...

Here's the first to a hopeful series of proof that the dystopian future is already upon us.

The Argument of Being Born This Way

The following is a powerful transcript from the comments section of a YouTube video, We Went To Gay Conversion Therapy Camp (Part 1/3).

AgentX7k2 2 days ago+Damian Mor Ok

I'm not getting my point across so I'll be more precise. I believe 1. Homosexuality is inherited pre-birth, 2. Homosexuality is not immoral, 3. Points 1 & 2 have nothing to do with each other.

Point#3 is what I'm trying to get across. What causes homosexuality combined with whether it can or cannot be prevented or altered has no bearing on whether it is moral or ideal. And in my experience (that is 30 years as a homosexual, talking to doctors, reading a few books and probably over one hundred thousand comments/debates over a variety of sources) no one beside me and a few others seem to be able to distinguish the two on either side of the debate.
You seem to understand the distinction as you specifically explained what about it is moral (consenting adults, harms no one, etc). Most people however think 'Born that way' cuts it and leaves it at that only to bring up what you said after they've been called out on their faulty logic, for example. 

Person A: Homosexuals are born that way
Person B: What about (bad thing)? People are born with that too
Person A: (Bad thing) hurts people homosexuality doesn't how dare you compare the two.  

Point is Person A compared the two when they used broad/faulty reasoning to justify something, Person B merely pointed it out. Why is it so many gay supporters think the opposer's can be swayed by pointing out they're born with it? I mean is there anything you find immoral that you wouldn't if you learnt they can't change wanting to do it? I don't think so. It would soften the view of the person sure but the action would remain just as immoral and we'd still hold them accountable for it.  

The same rules apply when discussing if something is ideal or a disorder, disability, etc. We base this on whether something hinders ones life (like you defined). Yet so many talk as if the cause of homosexuality is in itself proof of its healthy status like so:  

Person A: I don't like X
Person B: You were born with X and it can't be changed by any means
Person A: Oh in that case I love X 

Again this makes no sense to me yet that is how so many people believe the conversation should flow. I see this in all sorts of forums with people who want to be rid of their desires are meant to be consoled by the fact they can't do anything about it and never could. This should only alter the attitude towards the thing Person A dislikes, the response that would make sense is "Oh ok in that case I'll play the hand I'm dealt and do the best with a bad situation' not 'I can't change a situation I think is bad? Alright then that means its good'. 

If anyone were to convince these 'doctors' homosexuality cannot be changed I doubt their view of it would change with that fact. They would still see it as immoral or destructive or sinful and expect those 'afflicted' to simple suck it up and live heterosexual lives.  

I also don't understand why people think it being a choice is a personal attack, sure the statement is ignorant of science but it shouldn't carry the emotional charge it does. Yet everytime someone says 'I support their choice' 90% of the replies will either be abusive (omg you said choice fuck off) or condescending (thanks but it's not a choice sweetie). Why is that? Sure most who say it's a choice think it's a bad one but this person specifically said they don't think its bad but because they mention the C-word they're treated like the enemy.  

I've never felt the need to justify anything I do, say, think or believe on the basis I can't help it why should I or anyone feel differently when it comes to sexuality?
Because when I hear 'I don't have a choice' what comes to mind is shame, not pride. It's what people say when they don't like what they've done, to my ears it rings of 'Yes I know homosexuality is (bad thing you said) but I can't help it so you can't judge me!' 

I don't think 'Born that way' is that important yet from what I've seen it is basically the anthem of the gay movement, it's number one defence and got-argument and that saddens me.

I Can See The Matrix

I'm broken, lost, and completely and utterly paralysed if not for those long periods of mindless routines I have probably subconsciously gotten myself into to prevent myself from thinking about my own predicament. No wonder people say ignorance is bliss, because it is beginning to hurt more and more whenever I start thinking about things.

To put things into perspective, I probably should start with a small analogy of my own situation:

A presupposed god-of-sorts with an ambiguous motive created existence and beings of consciousness of which one species became predominantly intelligent over the years: men. However, men was supposedly created imperfect, and individuals often swing between the seemingly impossible ideals which is socially welcome and the irresistible pangs of sin which (almost?) all men fall for without fail.

At first, men's interactions were mostly independent, but as the species grew in number, they are forced to band together with concepts such as culture, ethics and morality. In an endless cycle of influence, both men and morals shape and evolve each other. Systems also emerged, with law, politics, economies, and spheres of influence giving men a strong illusion of free will when in fact they have already become chained to a life that has been predisposed without agency.

Two men were talking about these issues. One is more of a cynic, believing that  at worst, there is inevitably no hope and that it is easier to game the system rather than change anything , or at best, that we are just supposed to flow along with the system whilst believing that the small changes in our very actions, collectively, will suffice to tranform the world. The second man is more of a believer, that humanity's very own endearing hopelessness is the very same reason it will move forward to greater frontiers, but at the same time he is stifled and paralysed, knowing that almost all actions he takes is already corroborative evidence with the establishment.

Now for the question: who is right?

It is hard enough asking the question once, but imagine having to ask the same question at every single decision-making scenario. It's like getting into an endless loop without an escape to the least objectionable activity, with the loop itself preventing putting such escape in retrospect.

This is more than just an issue of refusing to dumb down ideas. The first problem to face is the problem of objective truths, of which science does not currently have methods of determining. You'd still need to settle for either a Bayesian or a Frequentist method, but to an idealist it doesn't seem enough. No matter how high the certainty is for a specific data, I have this strange belief that that infinitesimal small chance of things not going as is should be will happen, is happening and have had happen.

The second issue is the argument for morality. The concept of 'good' and 'evil' is parked uncomfortably in an unknown range of greyness, and although most of us say that the laws that govern humanity should hold these values to its highest importance, the sins of men often tear those notions down, and the men begins to metagame for greater advantage over his peers. If good and evil was merely relative, is there still any peg that exists or are we just subject to the limitations of our finite perception?

The third, the hardest, is the issue of trust and faith. That the very actions that seems the hardest cannot just be educated to, forced on, or just simply done on behalf of the people that should exercise their own agency. We have to put so much trust in each other, that each individual with the same chance of hopeless dread will step up WITH each other to break beyond out molds.

In the words of Kaitani Shinobu's Liar Game:

Liar Game 201 v16 Page 14 / Liar Game Manga

All three problems interact to form to ask the big question: why are we here? It is very easy to either just subject ourselves to a religion, or to not believe in anything (that we don't need to have a purpose), but an absolute truth seeker never settles for nothing other than absolute truth. The inability to do this is something worse than physical death.

I'm still... scared of pain, for it is uncomfortable, but to not exist is such a beautiful thing. It's weird to be able to empathise with suicide victims.

Hope is not lost though, for my non-existence means that the world will lose one more person that can see the Matrix of sorts. And professional help will be needed.

I'll get through somehow.

Of Being Jealous of Young Successful Individuals

Many people seem to be jealous of stuff like wealth, or physical aesthetics, but my esteem hits rock bottom when I listen to stuff like this:

A 12 year old beats me at playing this, and I'm not even close to finishing the piece yet.

Gambatte!

Why Do Men Smell Their Hands After Scratching Their Balls?

For the longest time, I believed that this act was supposedly dirty even though I do it myself without myself realising it. However, there actually is an evolutionary and scientific reason why this phenomenon is more common (and functional) then you think.

After puberty, the male body starts producing pheromones of their own which is secreted all over the body. Pheromones, obviously, are hormonal secretions which carries a evolutionary role in mate selection and sexual arousal. Men smell their own pheromones as a routine check to see if they smell 'correct'. This is also why males smell their own armpits and whatnot. There will be individual differences depending on pheromone sensitivity, magnitude of pheromone secretion, and learnt (or 'corrected') behaviour.

Or maybe gay men are just more predisposed to this issue... Hmmm...

Is Guilty...

... of rarely always sometimes having sexual fantasies of already partnered people.

Monopoly

First, I want to wish everyone into 2015, and I hope everyone is finding their peace with their new beginnings. I have been, for the lack of a better word, self-ostracized for a long period of time and I hope to get pass this phase soon.

Everyone knows the popular Hasbro exclusive board game Monopoly. Players take turns moving their pieces around a board representing properties, and the goal of the game is to continue to accumulate wealth to a point where you bankrupt your opponents, leaving you as the sole survivor. Whilst being a great game when we were younger, times have changed, and it is now considered one of the poorer designed board games ever, seeing no evolution other than aesthetics and flavour with new iterations.

What I want to write about is the few things I have learnt through a simplistic game:

1. The world is a pie.

Opportunists and entrepreneurs would probably shoot me for this, but the truth is simple: there is a finite amount of resources on this planet with an increasingly growing number of individuals. If you take more of the pie, you are also taking away from others the opportunity to have that portion of the pie (I am simplifying the concepts as there are indeed ways of obtaining pieces of the pie from others, but I digress). Monopoly delivers this idea through its main mechanic: the ownership and capitalism of properties.

2. Your circumstances matter (with the help of a bit of luck, skill, and/or fate, depending on whether you are a determinist).

Whether you start first or last, and whether you land on more unsold properties when you have the funds to buy it (opportunities) is the key factor of success. You tend to be on the losing end when you are the eighth person to go in Monopoly. This is strikingly aligned with the way capital works in the real world: if you are in the correct place and time with the correct resources, you have a head start compared to others (especially since capital can be inherited).

3. You are forced to consume (your choices are limited).

Have you ever wondered why you HAVE to pay rent each time you land on someone's property? What would happen if you could opt to pay nothing and sleep on the streets? Also, why are you just endlessly looping around the world until you either bankrupt others or go bust yourself? Yes, the game would be pointless without those mechanics, but it is also a very bleak representation of the real world's consumption culture where we never seem to question our spending, or the choices that we are able to make everyday.

4. The bank will never go bust.

Again, this depressingly  mirrors the banking systems in the world today, where bankers have so much power and wealth, but are never responsible for economic collapse where they will just be bailed out by governments. 

5. There can be only one winner.

Yes, it is common for multiple collaborations, economic immunities, etc. to exist, but the end goal is still for one singular individual to claim victory over others, which leads to the inevitable backstabs.

6. Often, the best thing to do is to commit a crime.

Yes, the jail is the Swiss safe-haven in Monopoly, where you can prevent yourself from moving around the board and paying rent, whilst still being able to collect. We don't even need to discuss how the rich get away with legally ambiguous actions (and therefore, more moolah).

So far, most of the lessons seem to be very discomforting, no?

Surprisingly enough, the original creator of the precursor to Monopoly, Elizabeth (Lizzie) J. Magie Phillips, created The Landlord's Game to illustrate the single tax theory of Henry George, and the negative aspects of concentrating land in private monopolies. In her version, there is an alternative method to 'winning', which is to, upon agreement of all parties, divert all rents into a socialistic common pot.

So green!