Both in the spirit of helping other up-and-coming writers and in sharing articles worth reading, I would like my readership to read the following post from a good friend of mine dealing with the dangers of diagnosing another from far away, especially when it comes to targets of high visibility. Read Mr. Schneider’s post, and we’ll continue from there.
Read it? Great. Let’s continue his train of thought, but from an antisocial perspective. What harm is there in diagnosing someone as antisocial (or narcissistic in the case of the linked article) from afar? After all, we know what sheep look like and we know what wolves look like, so if something looks like a wolf, does it truly matter if we are up close or in safety when calling a wolf a wolf? Well, there are the ethical concerns of doing as much, and then there are the practical concerns inherent to such a process. We shall start with the ethical concerns and wrap up this post with the practicality of calling wolves, wolves.
Continue reading The Song in the Static … The Goldwater Rule
The song by Discharge, later covered by Metallica, has always been a sort of pick me up for me. Here I am, a disembodied textbox on your computer, spewing the darkest of light and loudest of silence, writing about those matters that are near and dear to me, a transgender antisocial. I would not be able to do what I do if I had to live in constant fear of governmental censorship (or worse) of my words. Instead, I like to think that my words can inspire myself and others to seek out the best in life and become the best self that can be experienced during our collective’s short existence. Why then, is it so fucking difficult for others to see that speech and expression is sacred and that the uneasiness that comes with encountering differing perspectives and experiences in life cannot be substituted for actual forced sterilization of another’s words and thoughts?
Continue reading Free Speech For the Dumb … Owning Thought Diversity
How many victims are created by the thought that neuroplasticity is out of reach for some? Restated, just how many people with personality disorders or mental illness succumb to caricature simply because they are told that they cannot improve? Anyone that has followed my journey these past four and some years should know how I feel on this subject. Sometimes, the best cure is simply to be told that one exists, and that it is worth fighting for.
Continue reading A Radical Thought
These are fascinating times. Competing, and equally extreme, groups are vying for our heartstrings and lives are literally on the line in their self-inflicted wars. I propose that such animosity and blind hatred is born from a surplus of affective empathy and a dearth of cognitive empathy. As a empathetically blind observer, I have no dog in the fight between the extremists on the left and those on the right, except inasmuch it may ultimately affect me if either side should prevail. However, let’s explore in particular the atrophy of (cognitive) empathy that is fostering this current environment of dehumanization and violence.
Continue reading The Atrophy of Empathy
The vanity of misery is not enticing and is not wanted by those caught in the maelstrom. We live in a connected age in which every dream and desire of an individual is reflected for the world to see on digital media. People with little self-confidence (or, a perverse surplus of narcissism) flood our streams with selfies and with poorly thought out monologues that do little to stimulate our intellects. Weeding out signal from noise becomes ever-increasingly more difficult as the self-imposed prisons of the noise-bearers coalesce into view. I believe that we are becoming more simplistic as a species with all of this ill-conceived content. We need to care not for the simplistic and shallow that fill our televisions, social media streams, and conversations and care more for those directly in our lives: those in front of us.
Continue reading The Vanity of Misery
Political violence in a democratic nation is unacceptable. Measures exist, up to and including changing the Constitution (in the U.S.) or electing a new government (for parliamentary systems), to enact change peacefully. As such, violence is a short-sighted and inhumane. Yet, it seems to be in vogue as clowns on both the left and right find new and exciting ways to kill each other in the name of laziness – changing governmental laws and structures is, by design, difficult. Can we all just agree that political violence is unacceptable? Is that really such a radical thought these days?
Continue reading The Game