Destruction of LIBERTY and JUSTICE FOR ALL

YT Link: https://youtu.be/65P0W8gXiKw

[Image Description: A femme individual with long hair and glasses smirks at the camera, with her right fist balled and clasped in her left hand. The title reads “Destruction of Liberty and Justice for All HB2, et. al.”]

Synopsis: It’s the year 2016, and we’re still dealing with religious zealots pushing their agenda into daily life. These same people complain about how Sharia law might one day be over them, completely forgetting the Constitution that they so proudly proclaim to love, all while pushing their own Biblicly-rooted agenda. The majority of us in the United States do not believe the way these people do, but we have allowed their fearmongering about trans individuals to invade culture. This has lead to even more violations of human rights than simply disallowing trans people to use the bathroom appropriate for them. This is who is behind it all…

Transcript: In the Synopsis of Anti-Trans Bathroom Bills, I exposed the general narrative behind these fear mongering campaigns used to get bills like HB2 passed and Houston’s Equal Rights Ordinance repealed. As always, there are many more layers to the story. So, let’s peel some of them back to see how this isn’t just problematic for trans individuals, but rather anyone that does not adhere to this particular ideology.

The bill from North Carolina was passed off under the name of “Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act,” but did nothing to protect or secure individuals in public facilities or elsewhere. In fact, it was a response to an equal rights ordinance in the city of Charlotte that prohibited business from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, and allowed trans individuals to self-identify and use facilities that were most appropriate for them.

As a trans individual, I can say from experience that there is literally no one in our demographic that would be willing to expose themselves to the statistical likelihood of harassment, injury, or death. Trans individuals that may be dealing with dysphoria, social anxiety, or other obstacles resulting from living in such a bias society would never dream of walking into a bathroom that doesn’t match their presentation. Individuals will choose bathrooms based on their feelings, their appearance, and where they think will be most safe for them. As I’ve said before, the only “men in femme spaces” that have caused problems have been cisgender men and cisgender men only. Putting their issues with controlling themselves and their inability to function in society on us is absurd. But I digress..

The people behind these bills do not want anyone to believe that. They require the fear of rape culture perpetuated by cisgender men to push their agenda that’s rooted deep within the Bible. Who could desire to push such a God-fearing pious agenda? The campaign advisors for Ted Cruz’s council for religious liberty. Yes, in 2016, that is a thing. We’re marching towards theocracy, but we can discuss that some other time. The Benham brothers, David and Jason, are identical twins. Both of them graduated from Liberty University, a private non-profit Christian university with staunch Southern Baptist fire-and-brimstone leanings. In fact, the university teaches young Earth creationism as science, and has been criticized many times as being a sham of an institution.

These two brothers are prominent Christian leaders in North Carolina and staunch anti-LGBTQIA+ advocates. They believe their show that was due to air on HGTV was cancelled due to the “gay agenda” rather than their disgusting stances regarding basic human rights. These people claim that abortion rights, Islam, and the “homosexual agenda” are part of the “demonic forces at work” here on Earth. Essentially, they are delusional cisgender males attempting to push their own religion as the one true religion, and make everyone abide by it.

I also said EVERYONE. As I stated before, this was never just about trans people. The wording of HB2 limits people’s rights to pursue claims of discrimination based on race, religion, color, national origin, biological sex, or disability. It also disallowed cities from setting minimum wage standards for private employers.

It claimed to desire to “establish statewide consistency in laws related to employment and contracting,” and provide rules regarding “single-sex multiple occupancy bathrooms and changing facilities in school and public agencies.” This bill is actually a combination of several bills – Religious Freedom and Anti-Trans Bathroom Legislation. It is one of the most comprehensive and devastating to many demographics that are not cisgender, white, heterosexual, or financially secure.

Oh, and should I even mention that they define biological sex as “the physical condition of being male or female as listed on the person’s birth certificate?” Everyone does know we do not check chromosomes or other biological markers to determine that, right? So, we can stop having that conversation, yeah?

One could also even discuss how this narrative of protecting white women and children has been repeated since the Europeans decided to start taking the land of indigenous peoples of North America. How it has been used time and time again to destroy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for anyone that wasn’t Christian, white, cisgender, and heterosexual. This story has been used to justify torture, genocide, and unethical treatment in general for as long as Europeans have desired to make themselves appear superior.

Perhaps that’s something to discuss some other time.. For now, remember: If the shoe fits, wear it. Don’t get upset at the facts or how they are presented – examine what you believe, and see why you feel that cognitive dissonance in the first place. You just might find you have some gunk left to clean out of your mind to get to a place that’s better for everyone.

I hope that you stay safe, witchlings. Know that you are incredible, and I appreciate you. Thank you for joining me, and don’t forget to check out my social media for more discussions. Subscribe, if you’d like to stay up-to-date with my videos, and thank you so much for watching. Until next time, bye!~

Advertisements

Respectability Politics

YT Link: https://youtu.be/3Aea8diurIM

[Image Description: A gradient background with an individual with long hair and glasses, chin held high, looking towards the camera smugly, arms at her side. The title reads: “What I Think of ‘Tone Policing,’ Respectability Politics, as an Internet Troll.”]

Synopsis: I’ve been on the Internet for a very long time – from Y! Games chats like Battleships & Pool, to MMORPGS like RuneScape. Throughout it all, I have been abrasive,  and sometimes a bit deceptive. However, never would I ever think it would be correct to tell someone not to go about speaking about a topic in a particular way. Here’s what I think about people that try to silence oppressed minority groups by telling them that the only valid path out is the path of silence, peace, and happiness in the face of harm. Life isn’t happy rainbows.

Transcript: Full disclosure, as if you couldn’t have guessed by now, I am basically an Internet troll. A study with a total of 1,215 participants by Erin Buckels and her colleagues examined the respondent’s personality traits and their style of posting on the web. The researchers found that there was extremely strong correlation between four specific traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and subclinical sadism. These traits are often nicknamed the “dark tetrad” of personality traits. Individuals with these traits tend to rank lower in agreeableness and conscientiousness. Unfortunately for me, maybe I still haven’t decided, I fall under this umbrella.

Where most people see the Internet as an opportunity to lay waste to any person in their path, I see a way of bringing hope. I see a way of showing that society’s attempt to make human diversity, which harms nothing but the status quo, taboo will not stand. I was not always that way, but I did always push people’s buttons for fun. It was a long and windy road to get my morals where they are today, but here we are. I create chaos within demographics for the purpose of making a point using whatever means necessary.

Of course, not every individual is happy with the way I go about my life. For example, here is a post to a mailbox I use for hate mail:


“When you complain about cis people the way cis people complain about us trans folk, you look just as bad as them tbh” ~ Anonymous

This is an exemplary example for what you should do if you wish to practice respectability politics, often known as “tone policing.” It implies that every argument is from a logical rational basis, and if one acts “correctly,” then the oppression will cease to exist, and all will be well. It has its roots deep in the civil rights movement where people of color with elite standing would blame the bad behavior of white individuals in power on the actions of the people of color beneath them. This can be readily seen in Booker T. Washington’s Speech to the Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition given on September 18, 1895. In it, he claims that it is foolish to artificially force social progress, and that being complacent will bring change.

This attempt at peacekeeping and appeasing the individuals in power comes in many forms, such as: Asking the oppressed individual to cite examples of their oppression, disregarding that there may be a lack of study in that area BECAUSE of the oppression. An oppressed individual must never be angry at their oppressor, must never outsmart their oppressor, must never make their oppressor feel agitated, must never use foul language at their oppressor, and more.

In the most general sense, it says that a person with any form of power or privilege is less responsible for their actions and understanding.

This is a belief where the imbalance of power and the lack of mechanisms to bring it into balance are ignored entirely. It sugarcoats reality for the consumption of fragile individuals that are not prepared to face the realization that prejudice is not rational. It’s not an informed opinion. It’s a state of existence that is founded on no evidence, and the person choosing to believe it doesn’t care that it’s without merit. They have their anecdotes from limited life experience, and they want to extrapolate that to the larger globe regardless of fallacies. They are comfortable in their beautifully crafted echo chamber, and they don’t wish to challenge their views other than when it’s fed to them in the exact proper way. Even then, they’re likely to smack their lips and claim that the meal was unsatisfying while demanding more proof. More credibility. More reasons. This relates back to the Dunning-Kruger effect. They know so little, that they’re unable to readily identify a legitimate source of information, unable to understand the information presented, and apathetic to remedying either.

In my opinion, that is a far worse state of existence than being a simple Internet troll with a purpose. However, you’re free to come to your own conclusions. Let me know what you think in the comment box below. I promise to try to be nice, depending on the tone. Haha. 😉 Let me know what you think of trolls.. Has your view changed on them? Do you troll with or without a purpose? I’d be interested to know. Thank you for joining me witchlings, I appreciate you one and all. I hope that you stay safe, and know that you are incredible! Bye~

The “Freedom of Speech” Card

 

maxresdefault

YT Video: https://youtu.be/r12tLy3JB-k

[Image Description: Femme-presenting individual, me, wearing a purple and cyan tie dye shirt while sarcastically smiling and shrugging at the title “The ‘Freedom of Speech’ Card” on a pastel rainbow background.]

Synopsis: On the Internet, you fall into one of two categories. One, someone has told you that they are except from hearing your criticism of their opinion on the grounds that you’re attempting to censor them and violate their “Freedom of Speech.” Two, you have been the individual to do so. Here’s the truth about what the first amendment really says, what it means, and why that defense cannot be used to shield your precious prejudice from what the rest of us think based on our own morals.

Transcript, note that the video deviates in some ways from what follows here, but sticks with the same point:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So the first amendment was written, and so it has been since it was ratified in 1788. Undoubtedly, if you are a citizen of the internet, you have either had someone throw the second clause in your face or you have been one to do it to other people.
This often occurs in situations where someone feels their “opinion” is being threatened by someone else that is telling them why it’s problematic in some way. This is, essentially, taking the quote out of context to repurpose it for something that it was never intended for. Individuals using “freedom of speech” as a scapegoat to vent their prejudice ideals misrepresent the fact that the amendment clearly states that it is against government censorship of your voice.
To reiterate: Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.
When someone calls out a view that’s harming other people in some way, Congress is not suddenly whipped into a frenzy in favor of the person being critical of the problematic view. There are no agents of the government heading towards the stubborn claimant’s house to take them away for spouting erroneous conclusions and falsities.
They are equating the idea that being critical of that view, disagreeing with it, and proposing why it’s morally and ethically objectionable is somehow the same as the government reaching into their life to stifle their ability to preach their belief.
That sense of entitlement is deeply rooted in Eurocentric beliefs. They view it as a challenge to the status quo, and what they have been able to do without taboo for centuries. The paranoia that arises in these individuals is a byproduct of having lived in a world that coddles individuals that have little knowledge, big voices, and the willpower to destroy other people’s lives for their own comfort and gain.

Unfortunately for people like that, no one is obligated to nod their head in agreement. We are well within our rights to shout down a point of view that should be distasteful to modern society. Furthermore, we cannot ignore that even the historical figures that crafted this document intended for there to be certain limits placed on what an individual can and cannot say.

They recognized that there had to be limits on “fightin’ words,” or libel. It was known that lewd, obscene, profane, or insulting language was not necessary for an effective republic, and they understood that not every thought had merit in a discussion. Human beings are flawed creatures full of bias and unable to always see their missteps in logic. The founders recognized this, as thinkers, inventers, and scientists made up the bulk of them. They left the determination of what fell into those categories largely up to society itself by not explicitly stating what was unnecessary.

This was part of the reason for the Supreme Court. Should a case be brought before the government that showed a view was no longer valid to civil society, it could be examined more carefully there and either become case law or disappear into the ether.

For us, we’re most familiar with the term “hate speech,” and this is simply the condensed version of the above. However, Supreme Court hearings have added another litmus test to this: speech that poses an imminent danger or unlawful actions, where the speaker intends to incite such action and it is likely that this will be the consequence of the speaker’s actions, may be restricted and punished by law.

Even in the government, there is not a free for all on what you can say. There are limits that are imposed by our constitution and our courts. “Freedom of Speech” is not a shield with which you can block people from being critical of an opinion that has no evidence or relevant moral philosophy to back it up.

One is not free to say whatever they like. It is up to individuals that comprise society to decide what is unnecessary to see in public, and we just so happen to live in a society that is finally seeing that prejudice views have no place on the internet or elsewhere.

We also cannot forget that we live in a globalized society now, because of the webbing we’re all crawling around on. Not every government has a freedom of speech clause, and therefore this defense isn’t even relevant to the arena it’s being placed in. There is no constitution here. There are only enforcers of good ethics. In my opinion, we need more of them doing whatever it takes to silence views that have not been critically examined by those that adhere to them.

That is not censorship. That is being mindful of the way other people wish to be treated, and recognizing that not every thought that is produced by the human mind is sacred, especially when it has only a rocky foundation built on traditionalist views that harm other people.

There’s no doubt in my mind that people will be highly upset by what I just said, and to be honest I don’t care. Surprise, no one is entitled to spreading propaganda. No one is entitled to having their beliefs be accepted into society at large. Surprise, we’re progressing towards a society that actually thinks everyone is valid and equal. Playing the freedom of speech card isn’t going to halt the march towards the promised land.

Thank you for joining me, witchlings. I appreciate your support and kindness. I’m so thankful for those that have contacted me and keep in touch with me. Stay safe, as we grow and change. You are incredible. Bye~