(warning, literally 11000 words)
As I begin to type this, the crackle of fireworks echo outside, and the clock ticks along its usual route, though this time the date carries into a new year. Strange, to think that all in all, perhaps 2020 will be uniting… one of those few things, just about everyone can agree on… how unpleasant a year it was.
But so, rolls in a new year, and if we’re very lucky a new era. An end to the pandemic, while a distant light feels that bit closer, and across distant shores a huffy tyrant is being ousted. As I consider the year, I almost wonder if in the long term it will be viewed positively… not for its events, but for what it could bring. In nature, it is hardship that drives evolution. In this era, we’re in, which I’ve heard called, the era of misinformation, or post-truth… a global pandemic, for one, is a dose of much needed reality. A reminder that reality really isn’t something you should ignore… for it is, reality. Perhaps better to say, the side effects of ignoring reality are all the more stark and painful.
So with a view to my hope, that 2021 may be a year where, the first steps towards, resolving some of our persisting problems, where facts, reason and logic are, actually used, I’ve decided to compile my thoughts on the things that seem to be so, pervasive lately. The intention is not to rant, or offer some, agree with me or leave ultimatum as I have… to my intense disappointment, seen amid our fellow artists. But to put to page my impressions and thoughts on what can help us move forward.
As such, I’d like you, if you’re reading this, to ask yourself an important question before reading further. Do you want to know? This is a place of art, normally, carefree. I write of dragons, voracious situations. If that’s all you want me to be, then stop reading. I’ve put aside any thought of joining in the barrage of opinions I’ve seen from people I watch, but I suppose, bottled words want let free, and this felt like the time, when people are pensive, and cooler heads have settled from the intense emotions that revolve around these topics.
I welcome different perspectives, questions for clarification of what I mean… I know I struggle sometimes to phrase things in such a way, that people will understand what I’m trying to say. By all means let this be a prompt for debate. People talking calmly is probably the true solution to most of these. But if you want to start shouting, or just can’t stand different viewpoints, I’m not going to read those. And no, link barrages. If you can’t explain it yourself, then you don’t understand it. I’m quite sick of the, here’s a link… so there. And you follow it, and it’s some charismatic twit spouting evidenceless nonsense… which was enough to convince this person.

I’d like to begin with a few things about myself. Traditionally, I tend to be at odds with all “sides” for I disagree with the idea of having, sides, on most issues. It draws a line, that people feel they need to defend. To draw a line, of us against them, poisons what slim chance of understanding and compromise existed in the first place. Generally, I side with the end goals of the idealistic, but rarely with their methods. And often, while I quietly listen to others, I feel I hear, identical wishes from people arguing, only differing methods and language. In the end, if one ever wonders on which “side” I am. My answer is always the same when asked. I side with the evidence. And it is rare that evidence is equally split.
There are going to be some recurring themes which I think are better begun here. One of them is words. Human communication is one of the few things truly unique about us. Other animals communicate, some quite elaborately, but humans can communicate in a way no other animal can. Other animals can give orders, express emotion, convey warnings. Admittedly in some insects, they can relay directional instructions. But only a human can convey full and utter detail about what they see, hear, think. Consider my stories… a world invented inside my head, described, conveyed, acted out. I could describe the mug I use for tea. We can put the abstract into word form and discuss it. No creature can express themselves in such a way. The medium is words… which is why they’re very important. Some people I’ve met, have been too pedantic about their use, my philosophy is that any series of sounds that carries a specific, identifiable meaning, is a word, whether it’s in a dictionary yet or not… but once a word exists, it should be used correctly. I’ve had some take the stance… of who cares. But while, somebody using the word irony wrong is easy to wave away. Some words, we need to agree to be very careful with. Use accurately, or else dilute and bend their meaning. The specific examples will come up, but lets consider a word. Gay. The word means… or perhaps at this point, I should say, meant… effectively what camp means now. Flamboyant, bright and carefree. Now it is most commonly used to mean, homosexual. To the point it’s the G in LGBT. Why? Misuse, a change in common parlance. Now some of the books I read as a child, would unsettle some folk, because the word means something vastly different. But this example is not damaging… except to the English language, for the words are so vastly different in meaning that people don’t mistake one meaning for another.
Another recurring theme, is the phenomenon’s of human perception. It’s hard, to look at yourself, to question what you see… because it’s what you see. Every human is born into this world as a blank sheet, with a near identical set of instincts to the last generations. They make the same mistakes for the same reasons, fall into the same traps. The context can change, but the mental constructs are the same… and this, is something we neglect to see in our history. We see the context, the results, not what caused it. In the end, humans are no less the instinctive animal our ancestors were, and this thing we call “sentience” is the Ability, to look at our own thoughts. Not a guarantee that everything we think is automatically insightful. Our basic motivations are unchanged. We’re a territorial, tribe based, sexually reproducing primate. The metaphor I like is to note that… if you have two identical computers, and you link one to the internet… it’s still the same computer. It has access to more knowledge if you go looking, maybe it can even get updates… If you put in the time. The hardware hasn’t changed, not one little bit… and the original software… it’s still there too. You’ve added something new, not taken something away. You see a human growling at “foreigners” you’re seeing an animal whose hackles are raising because it’s feeling territorial, for example.

Coronavirus and vaccines
Not amid the problems we expected, while looking warily at the looming year a year ago… but has come to be, overwhelming. What’s there to say really. Here is a topic where numbers are plentiful. Oddly enough, places which take it seriously have significantly fewer deaths, either at a governmental, or individual level. And yet there are many who still seem convinced it is overblown. It’s been enlightening though. Watching celebrities wave a news article, that took them perhaps, fifteen minutes to read, in the face of scientists with decades of experience, and who have likely read nearly every study on this, their subject of expertise… claiming that the experts, should be agreeing with their interpretation. But no amount of denial has stood in the way of the body count. So what can be said? It’s hard to form an argument when I cannot even comprehend, what it is those who reject protective measures actually believe. I suppose I’d say this… lockdowns aren’t oppression… quarantine exists for a very defined reason, and ends, eventually. The blunt of it, patience is key.
Concerning, is the idea that vaccine rejection is rising, not falling with time. A mentality I struggle to understand, but then, I studied biology. For those who don’t know, your standard vaccine is effectively a bluff. A shot of broken fragments and empty shells. I tend to imagine it as scattering the weapons and dress of enemy soldiers through your body, to convince it, it is under invasion. The body mounts a defence against the supposed invaders. And when it concludes you’re safe, it keeps these battle standards on it’s watchlist… so should the real disease get into you, it has a “oh, you again! We’re onto you!” response. It’s not immunity such as it is, giving your body a significant head start in a war to drive the invaders out. Hence, the disease never gets the chance to take hold and spread… the population of a disease is measured in hosts. Like any species (though viruses aren’t technically alive) they persist and develop by producing more “young” than they had before. So, one host needs to infect at least one more on average. Vaccines prevent new hosts being found, it cuts off the breeding. That simple really. They are also, by and large, safe, barring rare allergic reactions to components that could not be foreseen… though, they exist to produce immune responses… which is what an allergy is, just an over extreme one.
However, vaccines have always had resistance. It’s natural. Humans, like most animals, have an aversion to having their skin punctured. Then it happened, the tainted study that seemed to become the rallying cry for people to cement their misinformed views. You’ve probably heard of it, a particular study that tried to link vaccines to autism… before it was debunked at peer review. Even the scientists involved distanced themselves from it. To summarise, a group of parents had banded together under a shared belief. They had been informed their children were autistic… diagnoses had been rising in line with an increase in awareness. It was becoming more common, to look for autism. Their children had also recently had a mandatory vaccine. They were convinced the two were linked, and that their children had never been autistic. As someone with autism, I don’t entirely understand the aversion many parents seem to have to the idea… But there you go. They pushed this idea, but were… universally shot down. As anyone with a basic knowledge of psychology can likely tell you… claiming autism can be given by a vaccine… is like claiming cell phone towers can give you COVID-19… stupefyingly ridiculous.
These parents however wished to prove it, and so they enlisted a study. The study was fairly simple in concept. Assess the children’s behaviour for autistic traits before, and after the vaccine. The children’s traits in the present were easy to see and examine. For the past, they needed accounts… from, their parents, say. Do you see the problem? This study, comprised solely of these parents, oddly enough found that the children were all autistic now, and reported as not autistic prior, by their parents… who were convinced vaccines caused autism. The study was fundamentally flawed in its design, had far too few participants, with a notable bias in the selection process. It also couldn’t be replicated… it has been held up as a case study for what not to do in scientific practice. And yet, the damage was done. Still people fight vaccines tooth and nail, ironically citing the idea that they are protecting people by, shielding them from protection.

Politics and misinformation
I’ve never truly understood the appeal of misinformation. By it’s nature it is, inaccurate information and I struggle to see a benefit to believing something that is going to mislead you. Sadly my country still languishes under a government whose primary method of communication is misinformation. Although it’s charming to know, across the seas, the greatest purveyor of the stuff is being dethroned. Sadly it’s going to feel like I’m picking on America throughout these topics, but I feel it’s accurate to consider that nation the heart of these issues, where they are densest, and reproduce freely. America has a lot of deeply rooted problems in a flowerbed of patriotic denial. I struggle to think of a defining moment in their history that hasn’t been… creatively remembered. Not that they’re alone by any means. I believe it was napoleon who said… and I paraphrase: History is a series of facts that people have decided to agree upon.
Not wrong, honestly, except that people don’t agree on history. And most, popular interpretations are not entirely accurate. History is written by the winners, they say.
When I look at the problems facing most of the developed nations, or the world in general in the case of the climate crisis, if you boil the problem down, it points to government. In the end, problems require unified action, which in a society comes from the top. Democracy is a word that has been abused a lot recently, especially in my country. Members of our parliament, doing their job and speaking as a representative of their region… were condemned by some as undemocratic traitors because their conclusions didn’t fit with what the elected government wanted. Honestly, in those countries I’ve looked at, I see only the laziest interpretation of democracy. Majority rule, also described as tyranny of the majority. Whatever viewpoint has the majority, is the only one considered. Elections become battles, where people have two options, victory, or zero representation. Personally, I believe the issue lays there, in a system of parties. Imagine if you will, if parties represented the will of the people. There would be a lot of parties, all encompassing the vast array of opinions and views. One would need to win, since in these systems compromise is a dirty word. So what then? A different party, would hijack the views of other parties… a watered down version perhaps, but add it to their agenda. Naturally, it would split votes, they’d get more overall, and win. This would continue till you reach the present. Two or three parties normally. Lets be honest. How many people vote for their chosen party, not because it represents their wishes, their voice… but because the other parties represent them less. The theory is that the biggest single chunk of people must be right. History has proven several times that this is not true.
An example here is the, unforgivable situation we’ve been thrust into, known only as Brexit. For those who only idly know of it, it is a situation in which the… most corrupt government my country has known has pushed it’s will through, regardless of the people. You’re more likely to know the example of the Trump government. And what a government that is… I remember when Donald Trump compared America to ancient rome… people laughed. I didn’t. The recent situation with him has given me reason to feel, I interpreted his words correctly. The president who think he’s top trumps, throwing trumped up charges around in an attempt to retain power. Reminds me a lot of what happened in rome, the day a leader decided he wouldn’t leave the big boy chair.
Democracy is held up as sacred, not to be questioned, but can we not forget it allowed a certain vegetarian, monogamous, responsibly drinking war hero to guide his party, the National Socialist German Workers Party (as memory serves they added the socialist part quite recently before they were elected. Perhaps they were being ironic?) to rule Germany for… a little while. A party whose very name is misinforming, who promised, a car for everyone in their country… only tanks rolled out of those factories. You know who I’m talking about of course… that party who decided to eradicate the other wing of their country’s government, and everyone they saw as sympathising with them, as well as, well, anyone they didn’t like. As an aside, I always kind of liked that we refer to the factions as wings… because it perfectly illustrates how ridiculous our systems are… since each wing always wants to be the only one beating… and oddly enough it means we go around in circles.
Through history, governmental structure seems to change primarily when the country is taken over in war, or ripped in half by rebellion. Personally I’d like to skip the brutal slaughter and just change our systems. They had a good run, lots of time to see what works well and what doesn’t… Trump has shown several weak points in the American system that nobody had ever seen before, so, he has that one, singular benefit to carry in his legacy. Perhaps we can start by making it that people with, the job of leading the country… are automatically fired, if they actively mislead the country… it’s right there in the word. If we have to suffer competency systems, they should too.

I know I’ve swung around, but this is the misinformation section primarily. A handy guide to spotting it is generally, evidence. I’d like to quote Carl Sagan: Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or exciting our sense of wonder.
I never found out the context of that quote, it sounds like something one would aim at religion, but it holds water wherever you put it. I use it as my reasoning for my, intense dislike of misinformation… it’s worthless as information, worse than worthless, no matter how nice it may sound, or how pretty a reality it paints.
There truly is no better case study one could hope for, than Donald Trump. An individual whose method is to, say what they believe or assume, then command their employees to find evidence to prove them right. It’s a special sort of deranged, that can be corrected, and continue to assert a lie so boldly. There has been remarkably little subtlety… hence a sense of what I can only call horror, or maybe morbid fascination, that there are some who continue to believe what he says. Perhaps I am strange, but I take lying very seriously when deciding who I want in a leadership role. Even more seriously, if I suspect they are deluded. Neither are traits that can bring any positives. The greatest evidence that Mr Trump is a poor leader… is his own words and actions and their effects. Even that claim that has been pushed more rigorously than any other, of benefits to the economy… is misleading. But such is the way of someone who… does not require evidence, and in fact will actively dismiss inconvenient evidence. The idea is utterly bizarre to me.
Statistics are a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. On the inside cover of the textbook I was given while learning to use them, there was a quote “There are three types of lies. Lies, damn lies, and statistics”. Technically not quite true, but it rested there on the front page as a warning. It is very easy to lie with statistics.. even to yourself. Statistics are just numbers, and so long as the original data is good, the statistics are unquestionably accurate. The problem is their presentation.
Example: A hospital presents a graph to display the quality of their service. This displays a very pleasing looking line of, patients leaving healthy against time. Sounds good doesn’t it… I’m sure it’s accurate. It’s also misleading. It considers only the number of successes. Better to use either, successes divided by failures, so, deaths. Or perhaps successes divided by the number of patients admitted in total. Either of these numbers would give a more rounded, accurate representation of success as a whole.
For a real world example, sort of, lets consider a certain interview, at the time referred to as a car crash interview, featuring Donald Trump, commending himself on his response to Covid-19. With him, he had what he presented as evidence of him doing a good job. Statistics, as I recall, on the number of cases that ended with survival. It was rather hilarious… for it was one of the few things he could have chosen that he had absolutely nothing to do with. That graph, depicts the work of doctors and western medicine to improve outcomes. The interviewer, plucked out, possibly the best graph to compare countries, as opposed to the worst. One noting deaths, as a factor of total population. A very fair number, as… a country could lose half it’s population, but still lose a lot less people than a larger country. Naturally… America was faring poorly. Last time I saw their news, they were up to, 1:1000 Americans dead to COVID-19… and with no signs of slowing.
The way our systems work, individual, average people need to be part of big decisions. The greatest mind in a nation, and it’s biggest idiot, have an equal vote... legally, both are equally right. It comes down to everyone, the masses, to be shrewd and see through the misinformation. Because as long as we allow ourselves to be misinformed… we’ll never be right.
Racism
Racism is a very dangerous word. It carries a heavy accusation, though misuse has diluted it’s meaning. So, it is used more casually, but still holds the same weight. As I said, dangerous. But to truly understand the problem, I think we need to consider where the word came from, why it exists.
What we call racism, is actually just ingroup bias, but the word was made to justify it. Ingroup bias is older than humanity, it’s a basic part of our psyche. In short, it is intended to make us feel more forgiving towards the actions of our own group/tribe, hence allowing individual animals to live in relative harmony without savaging each other. Those we Perceive as being from outside our group, do not have the same protections. These groups can be anything. Football teams, political groups, opinion based factions… heck even between those who identify as fatal or safe vore types. There are other effects, such as stereotyping. Your brain wants to be efficient but effective. So, it gathers all details for members of your group, people you will know. For people of other groups, it doesn’t give as much space. It looks for defining traits to identify them. Aka, stereotypes them. A stereotype is a caricature, a collection of every trait that is distinctive about a group, mashed together and blown slightly out of proportion. Generally, every stereotype has a core of truth, things that inspired it, but just as someone would be foolish to assume a caricature is an accurate likeness, even if it’s identifiable, it would be foolish to assume a stereotype is accurate of all in that group, even if you can see the traits to some degree.
But back to the word racism. As I understand, it was invented in the throes of the slavery out of Africa. As we know, people were harvested, packaged as livestock, and sold. Commonly they were treated worse than livestock, which is to be expected. Consider any war, or any time humans have done savage things to each other. There is an attempt to, dehumanise their victims or enemies. To make them less human, or less important, or more vile, to justify killing or hurting them. The slaves, were as human as their owners, a reality that needed denied. Their treatment was part of that denial, a way to make them seem less human, to keep them beaten down so much they wouldn’t dare act human. America was one of, if not the biggest customer. It was a big country, developing and spreading across lands they… had decided were free for the taking. Full of people seeking the dream… of finding their fortune. Slavery was unspeakably profitable. The single most profitable industry to be in during that time period. It attracted all sorts, and it exploded in America. Of course… the whole, enslaved people thing didn’t really gel with the glorious façade America has held up since it’s founding, so more than anywhere, they sought justifications. Religious texts were creatively misread to justify slavery, and science was equally abused till it said what they wanted to hear.
Amid this, was the idea of Racialism. In short, it is the idea that people from different regions can be divided into distinct races, that are fundamentally different from one another. This belief, is the cornerstone of the ideology that came from it, racism. The idea that not only are there distinct races, but some are better than others.
It’s worth noting, “black” and “white” aren’t races. They’re colours. In society today, perceived racism is attacked, while… racialism still thrives, and is even encouraged. One cannot exist without the other. Technically, Racialism wasn’t entirely wrong. There are recognisable genetic differences between populations. But, that doesn’t really justify the racial divisions. Two villages in the same country, will likely have some defining differences in their genetic make-up… why? Because they are separated populations, if only slightly. But they’re not considered different races.
Skin hue, was used to define race, that’s true, because it was easy to see. But not all “black” people come from the same racial group, nor have the same history, which is also true of “white”. Those terms are both, extremely unhelpful… because they perpetuate the idea, that there are distinct races, with significant differences between them. The hue of somebody’s skin is simply, melanin, the pigment in humans. More of it, or less. Nothing more than that. And it’s a trait that can be inherited distinctly from other traits. Already these “races” have been interbreeding, merging them into something new. Racism will never go away, unless racialism goes away. Unless, the idea that these race lines are distinct and important is shed. That comment is aimed at everyone.
I also feel I should point out the elephant in the room, that for the amount we talk of equality… when things go wrong, suddenly the most important thing is the hue of a person’s skin.
Black lives matter… what a truly awful slogan for an anti racism group. For the very reason I’ve been mentioning. It shoots itself in the foot. Not that the newer, all lives matter is a better slogan. While it doesn’t encourage racialism, it also doesn’t speak of the key point, and reminds people of the racial slogan. I’ve heard the defence of it, if I had a penny for every time I’ve heard the line “black lives matter doesn’t mean other lives don’t matter”. I can’t help but observe, if somebody walked down the streets with a “white lives matter” placard, and used the same defence… lets be honest, they’d be torn apart.
Remember what I said about agreeing with the end goals of activists but not their methods… well, here you go. Let me be blunt, I see no way this, BLM slogan gaining power will bring an end to racism. It pushes the idea that “black” people need to watch out, because a pale skinned bogyman is lurking in the gloom. It also ignores one vital point… that high skin melanin levels don’t make you immune to becoming racist.
Racism, is a weed. Personally I imagine it as a dandelion. The more aggressively people attack what they see on the surface, the more seeds they shake loose to go and spread. We need to be honest, and accept that all racism is still racism… and it will spread. Example: During the upheaval around the death of George Floyd, as I do, I found myself skimming through different articles and responses to, well, the response. Naturally I saw the usual ingroup bias. It was almost funny, to see the response when a sincere, darker skinned individual warning that the fallout was only making things worse. The response was very, gentle. Much more so than if his skin had been a different hue. But one piece stuck in my mind more than the others. I forget who, a boxer perhaps, called for all those of darker skin to, “Boycott white owned businesses” in order to “Hit them where it hurts”. What I didn’t see was a backlash against the racism. I remember earlier in the year, an article, anti racism groups in my country, up in arms, because a study into racism in universities, had dared use an unbiased definition of the word… and included prejudice based on the old Scotland/England divide. I believe they used a familiar, and worrying argument.. that it, distracted from the real problem. Aka, problems they care about. We really need to be honest about this double standard. Because Racism is a weed. People can look over into their neighbours garden, and shout at them all day about getting rid of their weeds… but if they’re in your garden too, you’ve set them an impossible task… because your weeds will spread back to their garden, and vice versa.
Racism and history. Here we really worm our way into the soil for those roots. While many countries have tensions, they seem strongest in America, for good reason. And unfortunately, as a country that broadcasts itself so, enthusiastically, it’s tensions help to maintain tensions elsewhere.
The riots and protests began a chain of statue felling. To some, a sign of positive change… I’m not so sure. I’d argue, a risk of entrenching misinformation. For a start, I’d like to openly condemn anyone who took part in those protests, in the middle of a global pandemic. More people have lost their lives needlessly from those actions. The hypocrisy is choking. And because what? This protest had to take the form of a mass gathering, and had to happen right now? Not to mention that riots were inevitable, because of course they were. Gather emotional people at the peak of their anger, in a situation where they’re going to be near police who they don’t feel charitable to currently? Whose actions they will interpret more aggressively because of their emotional state. Inevitable. There is blood on the hands of everyone who took part, and everyone who encouraged it, however good it may have felt to feel you were getting your voice heard. I hope their lives were worth it to you. I see it as a grievous loss.
Brief rant-like section over, back to psychology. There is a common bias all humans experience called confirmation bias. In short, it is the tendency to see what you want/expect, and to interpret neutral information as supporting your expectations. One of my favourite studies covered this topic. A group of individuals were informed, they were going to be watched. Scientists would tail them, to observe their behaviour in a natural setting. With their consent of course. They were told not to interact with these scientists at all if they saw them, for the sake of the study. The truth was, it was a lie. Nobody followed them. The real experiment was in the questions when the “observation” was over. Curiously enough, there were a lot of reported sightings of scientists who had been following them. They expected to be watched, so, they saw what they expected. This is also how paranoia works, and conspiracy theories. Once somebody believes something, they will see evidence everywhere… not concrete evidence of course… subtle evidence, that sounds like nothing if they tell somebody else… but which is confirming to them. They’ve also studied the same sort of thing around religion, naturally. A fine example in the current era is the… support for Donald Trump’s fraud claims. Lots of evidence, unless they need to actually present evidence.
Confirmation bias is… just a part of human perception. We test what we see against our assumptions, and if it fits in, we accept it as evidence… if it does not, we distrust it… and normally end up ignoring it unless it’s especially vast.. or go into denial. If you’ve absorbed the lesson, and remember where we are, things may start to fall into place. Yes, this influences perception of racism too… of everything-ism really. If you go through life expecting to be shunned and thought less of, you’re naturally more inclined to view neutral interactions as suspicious. I want to make abundantly clear that this is not true of every claim. But when the word subtle starts to appear, it rings alarm bells. Hence… the concern at the beginning. The dilution of the word racism, and worse… the active misuse. I’ve seen art styles accused of being racist, accents, even the makeup known as “blackface”. None of these things are racist. They can be used to encourage racism, and all have been. But they are not racist. A key distinction. Because all too often I see people arguing over these things. Someone can be assumed as racist for… well, speaking factually accurate statements. That’s a low we should never allow ourselves to sink to. Words, are important. It’s crucial we get the really heavy ones accurate. Call it what it is, and never call it what it’s not… or else it makes the problem worse. Being wrongly accused of racism is a fine way to make someone feel attacked because of their “race”. If someone innocent is barraged with these assaults, what does it do to them? They start to look at other accusations on other people and wonder… are they innocent too?
But I was talking about statues… Our relationship with history is… dangerous. But since we’re talking about racism, there’s a fine example in the American civil war. Prior to the war… and after it actually… tensions between the northern and southern states was high. Slavery was part of it, but not because of an ethical objection. Racism was considered fact in those eras. This was a time when the average person, north or south, viewed interracial procreation with the same horror as bestiality… no, the crux of the issue was economic. Slavery was very profitable, the south’s economy wasn’t just on a foundation of slavery, the first and second floors were built of it (and by it) too. While slavery had ended in the north, it remained in the south. No American president had any intention of trying to remove it… that would have been, unconstitutional. However the big question they were ignoring, was forced to the fore, with the west. The west was forming into states. New states. The idea of… not changing didn’t apply there. A decision needed made. Yes or no to slavery. It enflamed the political tensions. The south, decided they wanted to fight a new war of independence. Build their own Whitehouse, got their own president, and began… what, I’d have to call, a naïve attempt. But who can blame them, raised on the story of the founding of America, seeing that rebellion as heroic and just. It was easy to inspire the idea, they were just doing the same. So, as all rebellions… one side believes they are fighting for freedom, the other, for unity. It was war. A tension, yes, partially brought on by slavery. The north struggled to compete with the south… if the west went with slavery, they’d have no chance. The south… would see a no to slavery in the west as an attack on their foundations.
So how did slavery really become part of it? A shrewd move by unity craving Abe Lincoln. It was invented mid war, as a reason to fight, and not… just let the south break away. To turn the war into a crusade for freedom… and, to undercut the south in one move. He proclaimed the slaves free, meaning, suddenly the south had their own rebellion to deal with in the midst of their rebellion. But… especially ironically given certain, comments by Donald Trump, Lincoln was most certainly racist. That’s not a debated fact. Attempting to destroy slavery was more from desperation and tactics than any sense of ethics… a lot of the soldiers on his side echoed that sentiment in their treatment. Yet, when the war was over, it is… remembered as a crusade against slavery. Which, I’d say is a dangerous bit of misinformation. Perhaps if they had been more honest, there would not have been as many people in the south, keen to… rewrite history. There were literal guides on what history books to allow… as people in the south wanted to frame their fallen sons as heroes.
And, today. The attacks on statues. Every figure in history, is a human. A mixed bag of urges, motivations and actions. As said by a historian I encountered once, those who want to tear down statues, they don’t want to look at history with context. They want to smother and bury history, write it their way. A misinformed way. In the end of the day, the confederate army wanted independence. Yes, that included freedom to protect their empire of slavery, but it’s inaccurate to frame them as slavery loving villains who would fight and die to keep people enslaved. Most, fought for their state’s wellbeing, their family’s wellbeing. Fought to preserve their economy. The north, weren’t angelic saviours. While many fought due to a dislike of slavery, many were equally racist with those they fought, and the war was one of control. Hence, why we shouldn’t try to block out history, but, consider it in context. The wars of humans past happened for a reason. Denying, or changing that reason in how we tell our history, dooms us to face the same problems again.
Most of the statues put up, even those of slavers, were erected by a grateful populace who gave thanks to someone who had made them all stronger. At the expense of others? Undoubtedly. But, if that was our criteria, we’d have no statues left from any era. History is to be considered levelly, with context. Historical figures can he hated, but a gaggle of angry people pulling down a statue they don’t like, isn’t exactly in keeping with trying to understand one another.
As a general rule, humans always have a reason for their feelings. Normally, it’s based on something. For example, lets consider those who are deeply reviled. “white” supremacists. While I have nothing positive to say about their methods, or even their end goals, in the terminology and emphasis, one can see a kernel of good intentions. Let me elaborate before you finish lighting your torches. Many seek unity, a sense of community unity. Some seek safety and security. Most, are deluded in what will achieve that end. But, lets remember Hitler. He was depraved, but he wasn’t a twit. He, as do many supremacists and such, see the tensions between groups as a problem, same as most of us. Their solution… if there’s only one, then there will be no more fighting. Not strictly accurate… people will always find something to fight over, and unethical of course, but with some effort, one can kinda see an honest goal, hidden away in their dark methodology. Why do I say all this? To make a point. Generalising, and marking people clouds understanding them. And only by understanding someone, can you really try to either fix them, or, if that’s impossible, recognise the sort of person they were before they turned, to intervene and stop other people falling down that dark path. Someone who is, frankly scared and nervous, who wants people to get along, can be twisted into such an individual if… oh, I don’t know… a riot surges past their house. They’ll develop a very negative view of whatever that riot was about. What do you know… we circled back to the point that racism spreads itself like a weed… or like a pandemic one could say.
So what am I saying at the end of this long, rambling… possibly sleep deprived section? We’re going the wrong way about trying to solve racism as a problem, and honestly we’re not being honest about it. There’s an issue here that I feel is constantly overlooked. The fact that humans break into classes and subcultures. People rarely mingle outside of their “class”. Why? For one, differing interest. If someone owns a tennis court.. they probably want to use it. Someone who doesn’t have such a luxury, or can afford trips to the theatre, finds something else to do with their time. Hence, subcultures. In a simpler example, humans like to complain. Workers complain about their boss, bosses complain about their workers, and so on. Put them together, and they can’t complain openly. There’s an invisible line. At points, class systems have been more concrete… now they are, rarely so, and yet they remain. People with similar incomes often have similar complaints, similar types of past-time, and end up living in similarly priced regions. Little subculture bubbles come about. And remember ingroup bias? If someone from a particular culture tries to, effectively, move into a line of work that is in a different culture, they’ll struggle. Their verbal mannerisms will often be at odds with this new culture, as will their interests, their general knowledge will be in different areas… it may be subconscious… but they, won’t fit in. A lot may give up, decide they were happier where they were, and move back… other may not be hired because interviewers didn’t get the same… feeling from them, subconscious biases towards similar mannerisms. There can also be a stigma against leaving your subculture, if, all your family and friends are in it. As such, class bubbles persist. Now lets consider this in relation to “race”. Post-slavery, the freed slaves had… nothing. Often they wouldn’t be educated… because that would have cost money. They also had experience in, specific types of work. All made worse of course by segregation in America… which, forced subculture bubbles to form. I find when I listen to America, the complaints, the evidence of “institutional racism” are the same complaints echoed not by those of colour but those of similar class here. Race, and class became horribly intertwined and fused. To the point that class issues, are now mistaken for race issues. Barriers that have nothing to do with race… have everything to do with race, for those… looking for their hue to block them.
The future, has to be a place where the hue of a human is only relevant when… I don’t know, deciding who gets the sunscreen first. And otherwise people reach the conclusion that it’s not important. The conclusion that as we interbreed, our history becomes shared… or better yet, consider all human history, our history to learn from. We need to be careful to not turn the cry of racist into something inquisitorial, where people are afraid to speak, to be honest, for fear of life destroying aggression. To stand up to racism where it stands, but accept we cannot ever be completely rid of the ingroup bias. People will always, show preference towards those they feel connected to. For those who are raised in a community where most people are a single hue, it’s natural, they’re going to be more wary of those who are different. And that’s ok. We need to be honest about that, if we want to help people move past it. Attacking that, will only push them into a dark place where they can become true problems, and risk spreading seeds to everyone who sees it. The slavers and slaves… they’re dead. A human born now, is just a human. They don’t need to hate anyone. So, stop teaching them to, whether by indiscriminately attacking their skin hue, or by teaching them their hue makes them different in any way, good or ill. Because, if somebody is killed because their murderer feels their skin hue makes them worth less, that’s racism. Screaming that everyone who is the same hue as the killer is bad, that’s racism too. Arguably the second has more potential for damage. To plant the seeds that will ensure the whole cycle begins again.

Policing
You know, when I was young I wanted to be a police officer. I was bullied relentlessly at school because I was different. I felt it was unjust. I wanted to be part of those who stopped such things. Though I was the, sit with a book, not the run twenty laps, type. So it wasn’t going to happen. Eventually, I went into forensics. I found it a very, agreeable science to me. I wonder if it’s because I’m an aspie. I don’t view emotional triggers the same way others do, don’t get caught in the same protocols others do. Autistic Psychopathy was what the man credited with discovering my condition called it. I can kinda see why.
But beyond not being physically able, I don’t think I’d do well as an officer. Their job sounds truly horrendous. Emergency services, exist to protect people. Medics, protect people from injury and illness. The fire department protects people from fire, and general rubble based destruction. Both harrowing jobs… both are attacked by people while doing their job. Really, hard to rationalise that.
But the police have the hardest job, on paper. For their job is to protect people, from people… who they’re also supposed to protect. Some countries frame it differently, because, and it’s important to remember this, police services are not part of a singular whole. Even within countries, departments can be completely distinct apart from some information exchange. The concept is similar, naturally. I believe the first thing we’d call a police service, was created here. The intention, to allow the populace to police themselves, rather than have an outside force. Individuals from the community would be given the legal powers to enforce the rule of law. Often, this works better. Allows a human touch of interpretation. They, know the locals, so can better reason with them, or know when a crime is out of character, and should maybe have gentler handling. A benefit that does ebb as settlements get bigger.
The police, like bailiffs, sit in the part of the legal system most people prefer to not acknowledge. The fact that some, simply don’t care to follow the law. If you refuse to pay a debt, even after it is proven, or at least agreed legally, that you owe, they will send bailiffs to take things from you, whether you consent or not. In the same way if you commit a crime, you will be arrested, whether you consent or not. Oddly enough, as most people do not enjoy the punishments of crimes, if they tend to commit them, will seek to avoid arrest. And what can be done then? The literal only option is force. We’ve all seen clips… often, conveniently out of context, of police groups restraining someone forcefully. It can be hard to watch. As humans we have a natural empathy, and law enforcement is never pretty. It brings back memories of criminals in film and movies, chasing someone down as they run in fear. The reality is that emergency services have emergency powers. Normally it would be illegal to beat somebody’s door down. But a firefighter can do it without a single legal qualm if the house is on fire. We have firm laws about touching people without their consent. But a medic doesn’t really need to ask about saving your life. Walking into somebody’s house and taking things would be considered theft, unless it’s a bailiff taking assets to pay a debt. All these are easily looked over, and yet the police don’t seem to get that basic understanding. It’s rather sad. But likely because in the end, those they grab are resisting, and generally are indignant. And if it will possibly give them a card to play later, will they shout anything they can think of? Yep.
I recall having a unpleasant discussion with an individual on this very site, the sort who was screaming defund the police, and offered no understanding of their own, merely a nest of links. Links to what they felt was supportive of their aggression. Quite frankly at this point even Obama is against that slogan.
Police groups do have problems however, although generally it’s not to do with the uniform, or the office, or the rules they have. But with the people. One thing seems to remain the same. Police officers, are people. Plucked from their community. People willing to do a dangerous job, and generally not requiring much proof of education. So what can be done? An acceptance of their role would be a good start, hand in hand with a call for, above all, better screening (something they can’t afford with less funds, bizarrely)
But as ever, eyes fall on America as the example of how not to do things. I’ll say this. The sooner that country makes their justice and legal system utterly distinct from government, the better off they’ll be. The law needs to be impartial, fair and unbiased. I’d hope we could all agree on that.

Rape
This may seem an odd one to include, but not where I’m sitting. Not a month has passed without hearing someone claim “rape is being decriminalised”. When I was studying forensics, sexual offences were a real, elephant in the room. A highly emotional collection of crimes, and exceptionally hard to examine forensically. Combined with questionable legal wording, it’s a mess. In my job, I see… I’d say on average one of these a week. The worst day of a person’s life bound neatly in an inconspicuous file with a number on it that notes the year, and which case it is that year. Yesterday I was dealing with case… 24000 or so… I say the worst day of a person’s life. I don’t always mean the complainer. A term which, specifically for sexual offence cases, is advised not to use. They prefer, survivor… a perfectly biased term that assumes a crime has been committed prior to investigation. In addition, while the term, alleged, is common for us… as it is nice and neutral, it is advised to not use that term around sexual offences. For the simple reason, that there are a large group of people, who get very annoyed at the idea these accusations will be investigated without bias. Allow me to give the inside scoop. The attitude towards these crimes, needs to change. And not in the way those with placards want. I’m unsure how it’s phrased elsewhere, but the phrasing of rape legally here, specifies it must be a male.
But before I go further on a tangent, for those interested, let me lay out the considerations in such crimes. Crimes have two aspects, the guilty act and guilty mind (actus rea, mens rea). The guilty act in sexual offenses is a problem. Sex and sexual contact isn’t illegal. Rape cases involving children… are at least simple. Prove intercourse, prove crime. But if, say… the complainer is in a, when I feel like it relationship with several males, of which the accused is one, there is little that physical evidence can prove… so it comes to the mind, which is where the hornets nest truly begins.
The keyword is consent. I remember once seeing a video comparing consent to making a cup of tea… if only it were that simple. To commit a crime, you need to… and it gets a little complicated… know you’re committing a crime, or, be in a position where you should know, and ignorance generally isn’t an excuse either. Example: If you enter a shop, and the clerk behind the stall tells you you can take as many of a candy bar as you like without paying, because they were throwing them out soon anyway… and then the owner accuses you of theft, you’d have reason to believe you weren’t stealing, even if the clerk was lying.
With consent, it’s thorny. If the complainer says they didn’t consent, then an investigation is launched. The key to whether someone is charged is, did they have reason to believe it wasn’t consenting. Hence, for example, the rage that flares around looking into phones, and generally investigating the crime… Those who parade with “believe women” signs, for example, seem to have an aversion to evidence based trials. It can become one person’s word against another, and perhaps more tragic, it’s very possible for someone to be emotionally scarred… but for the person they accuse, to quite simply be utterly innocent of wrongdoing.
Allow me to offer a couple of examples… pared right down for the reason of disclosure, to try and convey the sort of situations we encounter more often than not.
Person A meets Person B on a dating website. They go on a date, and part. On their second date, person B asks if person A wants to go to their hotel room. Person A agrees. At the room, person A goes into the bathroom, and exits to find Person B undressed and under the impression the evening is going to be sexual. Person A says nothing, but quietly engages in oral sex as requested by person B. Person A leaves afterwards, and some days later comes to accuse person B of rape.
I could add more but this is already so much longer than I intended. So… what do you think? The amount of cases though which begin with the lines… person A had been out drinking. Alcohol is a massive, pink elephant in the room… Here’s an interesting point. If someone has been drinking they cannot legally consent to sexual actions. However if a male and female have both been drinking, and go willingly to bed together, it would be considered a pretty open and shut case of rape, despite the fact in theory neither could have consented legally. How about we go further. A male is drunk, slipped Viagra, tied to a bed and mated by a perfectly sober female. Not rape. Flip it around, open and shut. The law around these cases is fraught. Nothing can change until those pushing for more convictions, wanting to trust the word of one person unconditionally, stop acting like children. The rules need rewritten… and as I said, not in a way they’ll like. The example I gave was fairly neutral. There are plenty of open and shut, not guilty that come through too. But if you sincerely are a victim, or feel you are. I’d say one thing… go to the police immediately. Don’t wait for what slim shreds of evidence there are to be lost. Because I’ve seen some really awful cases. There’s one that has been coming back for over a year because of how hard a time they’re having finding the guy. Clear case, just no idea who. I see the emotional transcripts, of those who are truly suffering. And I don’t understand really, why those who protest for justice, don’t feel the same cold anger towards those who make false claims as I do. Those who make everything harder.
“Gender”
Saved the best for last. I’d give the word Gender my, most abused word of 2020… but I’m pretty sure it’s had that award for a great many years running. Gender, is set to be the new gay. A word which is now used incorrectly more often than it is used correctly. I’m not sure I’d care… if it hadn’t become such an important word, cornerstone of all I hear coming from the trans movement. So lets start with a little definition time.
Your sex, refers to what you are physically, which genetic blueprint you are. Male, or female. There will be exceptions I’m sure. Nature is funny that way. But for basically all mammals, humans included, it is absolutely binary. You are constructed as one, or the other, barring aforementioned glitches in the program outside of normal functionality. To clarify since I gather this is misused commonly… A mouse male, is referred to as a buck, for short. And a female a doe. We have many words in our language to denote a specific sex of animal. Cockrel and Hen, peacock and peahen, the list is endless. Animals we spend more time with often get special titles, just for them… whereas, say, buck and doe is used commonly. In some cases we even have specific names for prepubescent forms. For our own species, we have the words, man, and woman. Words which specify species and sex.
Which brings us to gender. Gender, is not sex, it has next to nothing to do with sex. Gender is behaviour, personality, (and mostly in the case of humans) adherence to social expectations, aka stereotypes. Your sex can influence your gender, in that your sex influences your eventual hormone levels. That’s it. The idea of a male, and female gender is based on the observation that the sexes often end up acting differently, slightly different programming.
Sexuality, is your attraction… although this one gets a little more complicated when you try to pick it apart from gender, because the two things seem, quite tightly linked. But to try and clarify the differences between all of these, lets use an example. The peacock.
Peacocks are very distinctive. Males have vast feather plumes for tails, used to display. Females do not have these displays, nor display the associated behaviour.
A male peacock is in a field, he is displaying his feathers, demonstrating male gender. He is displaying to females, for he is heterosexual.
A homosexual peacock, should in theory display, for they are male gendered, but display to other males.
A female gendered male would in theory never display, for they do not identify as a male. Instead they would watch displays… you might note, this means they would also be homosexual. Though sexuality, is seemingly part of the stereotyped gender. But they can perhaps be distinct. Such is a point that is unclear to me. Given that how a trans individual describes themselves, is frequently identical to how a homosexual individual describes themselves. It’s possible it could be the same thing, but they interpret their feelings differently… either comfortable with their body, or not. Or it could be that trans has been masquerading as homosexual… perhaps there is a line between those whose personality is remarkably “normal” and those whose personalities are vastly different. At this point, that question needs more answers.
When I was a bit younger, like most I think, I easily sided quite casually with the trans movement. It was, another group of people wanting to be accepted. Like so many others. In time, as I started to realise I wasn’t entirely heterosexual, and got more interested, I started to puzzle at, LGBT. Because to my eye, I didn’t see that LGB and T had the same goal. Actually, their goals seemed opposite. The former three, seemed to want to abolish gender, the idea that there was a normal, or correct way for a male or female to be or behave, or be attracted to. The T seemed to consider gender all important and defining. Gender and body had to match. Admittedly, a… mentality shared with those who used to beat, pray, or electrocute those whose genders needed “fixing to be normal”, except a focus on changing the body not the mind…. Or both.
This topic feels the most tense to type about, we are, after all, a decidedly sexually abnormal community. And, I bear no shame to saying my sexuality and interests are bizarre, unnatural even. Heck, I’m attracted to the idea of being eaten alive and digested by a dragon… I’m pretty sure that’s not a nature-viable mentality. The only saving grace being that it’s impossible. I am who I am.
What I will say, is that all my warning bells are ringing. When a group finds it’s greatest opponents are, scientists, experts, academics and writers… I take notice. For a long time, the word, gender was a focus. Because as I said, it’s used wrong more often than right. If you’ve played any videogames recently… do tell, does it ask you what gender you want your character, and correspondingly, change their physical sex? If it really meant gender, nothing would change physically, only, personality. This very site is an offender as well. I have to wonder if this, inaccurate terminology is behind much of my misgivings… and the flaws in their actions. Those who speak of gender, but then want to look like the opposite sex, to demand people refer to them as it. Who would change their hormones… and in so doing alter their own personality as well as their body. And who would try to encourage children just touching puberty to, transition themselves, before they even know themselves.
I look at the results and I wonder, why. What does one gain by having a surgeon alter their appearance so. It doesn’t gain them functionality… only loses them that, it doesn’t bend reality, they’re the same sex. The only benefit I can imagine, is peace of mind, for someone who sincerely believed they were, wrong to be the way they were, that happiness comes from… a slightly different pronoun hitting your ear when people speak of you. Of being able to do what you want… and have it fit an outdated stereotype.
I’ve wavered, I’ve sat, I’ve listened. I’ve seen scientists quoting the very research and understanding I’ve learnt in university, be chased away as transphobes by a community that offers little but emotion as a justification for their claims. And I’m reminded of that quote from Carl Sagan. My support always rests with the evidence. That’s all you ever really need to know about me. With any luck, the factchecking wave will be here to stay…
If I could say anything to those who are wavering, I’d say this. You are who you are. Your body is yours, nobody else’s. You get a roll of the dice which sex you are, both are fine, and grass is greener pondering is normal. Your personality is your own, there’s no right or wrong way to be really, certainly not because of what’s between your legs. And if anyone comes to you, trying to convince you that surgery will make you happier, that someone of your sex, or your gender needs to change something about yourself to fit in, to be right. You tell them to go jump off a pier. I’ve sat in a surgeon’s office, discussing the very real possibility of changing something about myself, to fit in. I realised something that day, as the enormity of what it meant to have my body cut into for the sake of appearance sank in. That what I was thinking of was crazy. That there was nothing wrong with me, so why did I need to have surgery.
I do want to be clear I have no intention of claiming someone can’t be trans, only to give my thoughts on how we’re currently treating it. Because gender is an old fashioned word. Time was a female was expected to stay in the kitchen, a male was to go down a mine. Those were the rules of society, rigid roles, rigid behaviours prescribed based on your sex. That’s what gender is. Not, male and female… closer to masculine and feminine. We’re still shaking off the idea that the sexes need to act vastly different, and honestly, I do blame our misuse of that word, gender. People clearly don’t know what it means. If they read gender, and think sex… what sort of conclusions will they reach? Because generally, a scientist, a study… will use the term correctly… generally. As to why this whole thing happened… personally I suspect because the word sex not only refers to the sexes, but also to the act of intercourse. Gender was a nice… neutral word to use which, had a similar meaning really, when we adhered to the idea a gender and sex were linked.
But when I really boil this whole topic down, there’s one unavoidable point that just cannot be denied. We’re animals. We’re a primate. Some species in the world have truly intriguing and strange sexual lives. Some change sexes mid way through their life. Sex is fluid, as is gender for them, over a short period of time. They’re just following their programming. We, are not them. We’re remarkably generic. The biggest difference between us and other animals, is our ability to imagine… though we do have one interesting quirk. It’s very unusual for females to bear sexual ornamentation, like the peacock feathers… but frankly, our genetic gender differences, are a bit like the peacock and peahen. They’re primarily only involved in our sexual interactions, the only place where the two sexes need to act differently, like most animals. A lot of the rest, is culture.

If you’ve pushed through this, stupidly colossal post, good on you. In some ways I’ve wanted to let out my words for some time. Not that I expect many people will read this. Most will, either wisely decide they don’t want to mix politics and pleasure, others, will see the stupendous size and bawk. This thing is like, twice as long as a story I normally post… I expect others will read till they find something they disagree with, and leap right to inform me of that, and little else. But we’ll see I guess. Let’s call, airing out my thoughts a new year’s resolution.

May 2021 be a year of logic, honesty, and oodles of factchecking. Others may disagree, but me. I think getting our facts straight has to be a pretty darn good step on the path to finding compromise and agreeing with each other… for a change.