Quantum Mechanics' Many-Worlds Theory May Lead to Eternal Life For All

Disclaimer: What I am about to express is entirely unfalsifiable. The only way I could be proven wrong is if I, myself, am killed. Of course, I would never know this occurred, so I cannot be proven wrong. And you, the reader, can only know if I am wrong if you, yourself, are killed. My dying won't prove it wrong to you any more than your dying would prove it wrong to me. In short, if this writing makes you do something stupid to get yourself killed, it will not prove to me that I was wrong, but rather that one of your multi-verse consciousnesses did something stupid.

So let me begin. To start, for those unfamiliar, the idea of many worlds is ultimately the concept that our universe is simply one of many. There are some unknown and potentially infinite parallel worlds where things are tweaked from a small amount to a massive amount. For example, there may be another parallel universe where I am president of the United States or that there is no United States at all. Allow me to further clarify my own belief, however, based upon the quantum mechanical principle of uncertainty and probabilistic wave functions (I won't explain them--just know that I have my reasons). In short, I do not believe there actually are many worlds, but rather many possibilities of them. They all do and do not exist simultaneously depending on how one wishes to define existence. This can be rather confusing to comprehend since it appears as if we experience one true existence, but what we are experiencing is simply one of the potentials of what could be and there simply is no right or wrong of what truly occurred. Nothing truly occurred. They all are, and always remain, potentials as opposed to realities--potentials of which our consciousness can experience.

There are many choices I could have made differently in life and many choices that others could have made that would make my life different. What I consider to be "me" experienced only one of those many branches of choices. This "me" could have experienced any number of other possibilities, and yet here I am for seemingly better or worse. This is not to say, however, that there are universes where I have two heads, or that there is some universe where things randomly start floating off my desk, or yet another where we're all cockroaches instead of humans. I suppose, given my limited knowledge, that this could be possible, but that does not necessarily make it one of the many possibilities and thus actual experiences. Things still have to obey the laws of physics within their probable universe to develop. So unless physics and matter could interact in a way to bring about the evolution of cockroaches who then evolve into sentient species that just happen to develop the exact same countries and mental habits, there simply is no way for such a world to exist which parallels ours with cockroaches. But hey, what do I know? If it did exist, however, that cockroach version of me would be forced to write a different blog post since it would make no sense to use cockroaches as the hypothetical. Such small differences would ultimately undo the similarities as a massive butterfly effects that reverberate through that potential path of existence.

Hopefully this explanation helps aid in comprehending what the many worlds theory does and does not mean. With this understanding, perhaps I can now explain why this could very well mean eternal life for all of us. If everything is merely a possibility or a probability of what "is" but nothing truly "being" anything and thus not technically having parallel worlds, then all of the probabilities containing my essence truly are myself. They're not running in parallel, but rather they are myself given what I could have done or what could have occurred to me. They are quite literally still me but simply probabilities of me and how my life occurred. They are not copies, they are not different versions, they are truly me. This is a very important concept to grasp for the theory I am proposing. They do not exist, they are not real or parallel, they are simply a mathematical probability and I thus only experience whatever has continuity. I can't experience one where I die and then suddenly begin experiencing another wehre I did not. They'd no longer be "me" in such a case and we've already established that these are me. I am thus forced to experience one in which I continue to live. In this way, I can rest assured that I--or my consciousness--will experience my longest life possible as the only viable probabilistic option for such a consciousness.

It further stands to reason that my longest life would be the one that enables me to live forever. Such technology may not exist now, but it very well could come about during my lifetime. I might question why my longest life begins before eternal life is devised rather than afterward, but there could be many reasons for this. My personal make-up might require that I learn certain lessons while perceiving my life to be finite in order to make the proper choices later in life that keep me alive. Longevity may be the reduction of age-decaying death, but there is no escape of death when flying into a sun or living on a planet that implodes. Perhaps I simply have no means of escaping such deaths with my personal consciousness if I began when life was eternal. Who knows! 

So  as long as there is always a choice to go or not go on some crazy death-defying adventure, if I find that I actually choose to go through with it, it must be one such probabilistic universe where I do not die in the process or else I would never have made it or there was simply no avoiding death at that particular time. In such a case, eternal life, for whatever reason, must never have been a possibility for my particular consciousness. Maybe it was simply impossible for everything to come together as set up by the physics of the universe to create exactly me at a time where eternal life would be possible. Still, all risks are no risks at all if I am guaranteed to live my longest life--so I might as well simply do what I enjoy without fear. Again, if this makes you do something dumb and kill yourself, I have no way of knowing that "you" experienced that rather than it being one of many potentials of which you did not truly experience. So don't go crying to me if you went skydiving and it killed you. And remember, if you're still alive to tell me, there's no guarantee this wasn't for the best for some reason! And even if it wasn't, I can't possibly be convinced since my best life my very well include your death for some reason!

What is also interesting about this concept of multiple worlds leading to our own personal eternal life is that it jives so well with many religions and simultaneously demystifies them. For example, Jesus states that we should not worry about food and clothing since God will feed and clothe us. Clearly many people, even those of the faith, die of such things all the time. So how can this be? Well, perhaps it is because those instances are not the longest-life iterations for their consciousness. Their deaths might very well exist within our longest-life experience but their consciousness might actually be experiencing an entirely different scenario to the one we saw played out. So we can blindly continue believing and knowing that "God" will care for us since we will still indeed have our own longest-life experience. This also jives well with ancient Chinese philosophy in the I Ching which essentially tells us that all things which occur to us are for our greater good. At least, that was the takeaway I received from reading Zen and the Art of Happiness by Chris Prentiss.

In short, if this theory of mine is correct, we can live with far less worry and stress. We can truly believe that all things happen for the greater good of our consciousness. We will live our longest life which is simultaneously hard to separate from our best life. Stress causes health issues and shorter lives so it must be the case that our longest life will have a perfect balance of stress leading to greater achievement and life-long lessons which leads to better decisions and longer life. Of course, I write all this from a position of many comforts and that's where things perhaps get a little dicey.

If someone reads this and they are on the verge of death, they can ultimately know it is hogwash since they are clearly experiencing the book and the death simultaneously. For me, however, I can have no guarantee that the person informing me that my book is hogwash is indeed the version of their consciousness that is truly experiencing it. It could very well be one of the many potentials of their life which has come to conclude this to tell me. In short, it almost makes everyone else on the planet a simple automaton. A potential non-player character. Shells of a probability of what that person could have been but is ultimately not what that person truly experiences. In that case, it almost makes sense to live for me in a selfish and exploitative manner. Despite knowing this, however, I have zero desire to do this since I have learned many lessons which have shown me that this would not lead to my greatest life. So, while it could be true, it is in my best interest to remain kind, giving, loving, sharing, etc. 

Altruistic characteristics will yield the best responses of those around me to promote my longest life. If I stop caring about others and start treating everyone like trash, I already know this will yield poor results for me. Thus, I feel absolutely incapable of making such decisions--both out of logic and learning, and simply because it seems to defy my very nature. They do not appear to be choices I could truly make even if I wanted to prove myself wrong. I could prove my entire theory wrong right now by doing any number of things that would lead myself early to the grave, but I cannot seem to make those decisions. I feel the concept of free-will enabling it, but I could never make such a terrible decision. Thus, I cannot prove to myself that this theory is wrong. Nor can anyone else. They can only know in and of themselves if it is wrong while lying on their death bed. By then, however, it is too late.

While we yet live, at the very least, I find this perspective in life leads to many benefits with reduced stress and the ability to let things go. I can be happier and more confident and those characteristics themselves lead to better things in life. Much like the theory of the "law of attraction", I find that most of life is all about learning confidence and proper perspective which yields a harvest of the best things flowing our way like a magnet. If you are reading this and you are in a rough patch right now, this perspective might very well set you free and you may find that all the previous pain and suffering you have endured has merely been a means of learning and gaining insight to aid you in achieving your greatest and longest life. 

While we may never truly know, if our longest life is shared with someone else's longest life, perhaps that lends to the idea of soulmates. Further, perhaps our lives can be judged by the number of longest lives that share with our own longest-life paths. If many longest-life paths require our own longest-life path, then it must be said we did something right. And perhaps this is the very metric we'd be judged against in an afterlife or by some being running a mega-meta-quantum simulation that judges us for worthiness of eternal android bodies. Really, this interpretation yields all kinds of possibilities of religious and philosophical frameworks. Plus, it is super geeky, fun, and a potentially great perspective which, right or wrong, could indeed help us reach our greatest lives even if via nothing more than sheer confidence, placebo, and a false sense of security. So let's get out there, be free of stress, do what we love, and live forever! Or, at the very least, die blissfully ignorant while always assuming the best case scenario for our lives no matter what is thrown our way.

My Breakup With Facebook

 

I had rarely ever considered ditching Facebook. While I had seen others do it, I either shrugged at their luddite ways or else felt saddened at the lack of ability to now interface with them. The idea of having to share myself on Facebook and then do it yet again multiple times outside Facebook just to reach those few people was simply not  acceptable. It short-circuited my efficiency routines. If you care about what's going on in my life, then follow my Facebook! I'm not going to message each person individually simply because they chose not to care. And how can I follow them? I felt as if they were ditching me.

Facebook had also become a habit for me. I was not particularly concerned, however, as I did not really see how it hindered my life at all. I would open my phone to check an email and the first thing my thumb would do is click the Facebook app. After reading a few posts, I would put my phone away only to realize I never did check my email. On slow days, I would read through all the posts on Facebook, sigh at nothing better to do, exit Facebook, and then see once again the icon on my home page which autonomously forced my thumb to click it yet again. I had just exited the app, and yet now my thumb is opening it back up again! Silly thumb. I mostly brushed it off as humorous and gave it no second thought for how it was affecting my life. Sure, I had read that it affected many other people's lives, but it wasn't really doing anything for mine. Or so I thought. 

It wasn't really all that apparent what Facebook was doing to me. I engaged, I shared myself, I gave and received advice, I learned things, and it overall seemed like a great thing to be a part of. Sure, there were a few trolls here and there, but I learned how to ignore them and I became rather fond of the block and unfollow options. I thought I could simply cater my experience to keep it pleasant and joyful. I worried that I might be missing out on other sides of topics and creating my own little bubble, but in the end it was worth it to keep my sanity by being selective with my interactions. I kind of felt like a Facebook-using master. This is why I always chuckled at people who said it was toxic. They simply didn't know how to shape it to their benefit like me.

Well, kind of out the blue, I one day decided to do away with Facebook. I had been contemplating the idea as I began to notice that indeed energy was being spent on it. My life energy. It was something I put actual effort into and most of the time for very little payback. So I thought, heck, why not give it a shot? I chose to not open it, not engage, and simply do other things with my life. Even just sitting outside held a million times more enjoyment than post-scrolling. At first I didn't notice too much difference in my life, but I did realize that I didn't really miss it. I went and uninstalled the app from my phone just to make it easier and I went another day or two with no regrets. I logged in on my PC once in order to communicate with someone on Messenger and I had no alerts worth mentioning. It seemed my presence wasn't particularly sought after if I was not personally engaging. Facebook didn't miss me any more than I missed it.

And so, I've continued on without it. There have been a few moments where something cool would happen, like seeing a blue heron in our pond for the first time, and I would be a bit antsy to share it with someone. But, without Facebook, who would I share it with? And how? Out of nowhere, an idea came to me... I could share it with my immediate family: my wife and kids. No one else really needed to know. And why not be excited about events with them rather than with my phone? Like an epiphany, it occurred to me the difference between Facebook and real life. Throwing my life out there for hundreds to see is not very personal. Nobody feels like they are a part of my life simply because they see me post a few things. And I don't feel like I'm a part of their lives either. Facebook takes everything good about who we are and spreads it so thin that it lacks all potency. We become but dust in an electronic world. Worse yet, dust for dousing with ads.

In short, it is so much better to share something fun with one select individual than with the world. That one individual knows that you sought them out and decided they were the one worth your time and effort to share that particular story with. It's personal. It's engaging. It builds an actual relationship. And over time, I have noticed that I have so much more will-power and energy. Perhaps it's just the honeymoon of trying something new, but I am really thinking I like life just a tad bit more without Facebook. I may not receive as much in the way of news, but what good did that ever do me anyway? I am more at peace. I am less burdened. I can now focus on what is before me. I just might keep it this way. Facebook, we are through. You are a bad influence and you are terribly needy. It is time we go our separate ways.

Lumpy Thoughts Make Lumpy Decisions

A common issue I see in today's Facebook battles is an inability to distinguish differences and account for more than one point of view. For instance, there are protests throughout the country. Some people shout that they are peaceful protesters being shot up with rubber bullets, gassed, and kidnapped by unmarked federal forces. Other people scoff at the ridiculousness of this since clearly they are rioting, looting, setting fire to police cars, and so on. Thus, they deserve what they get. The problem, of course, is that both of these are entirely true for some and entirely false for others. This is not an all or nothing thing. It is a lot like the elephant where each blind person feels different parts, but instead of each blind person being wrong and it all makes an elephant, they're all claiming they're seeing an elephant when indeed they're actually seeing spears, fans, snakes, walls, trees, and rope and mistaking them for tusks, ears, trunk, torso, legs, and tail of the same elephant.

Freedoms are indeed being repressed. Peaceful protesters should not be silenced. But when this sentiment is spoken, those who see the violence (seeing spears, thinking tusks, and calling it an elephant) and think that this accounts for all protesters believe this is complete malarkey. There is no freedom to light things on fire. That is not free speech. And they're right. The problem is, they're talking about two completely different groups of people. Of course, few try and few succeed at making this distinction. Our way is correct and there is no cause for thinking otherwise. Enough people believe just like me and therefore there is no reason to assume these other people could possibly have anything valid to say.

And I totally get it. We have limited time. I can't look into every single conspiracy theory. And just as easily as it is for me to say we should trust our CDC, others find it just as easy to say we should simply trust our president. I'm not going to sit and listen to people claiming there's a worldwide conspiracy within the CDC and others aren't going to listen to my rhetoric on how Trump's every move is an angle to gain power and sew corruption. If enough people back you, it's easy to put others aside. And if we decide to listen to such people of opposing viewpoints, there are literally hundreds of thousands of points of view and conspiracy theories to take interest in. Did we really land on the moon? Was 9/11 an inside job? Are the Clintons running a mob? Did aliens really abduct people and perform probes? And when we look into it, we again have to decide who to trust for the data to make such decisions. It's all just too much. At what point is it checking out to ignore and at what point is it being duped by conspiracy to give in and consider?

In short, we all have to make snap judgments and decide who we're going to trust. Some will get it right for some things and some will get it wrong for other things. Still others will have to decide when the right time is to listen to contrary words and make a new decision. It's tough. We all have our own bubbles of insight, people are speaking from many different points of view, we filter it through our own views with false group assumptions, and it's nearly impossible to even first comprehend what another person is saying let alone give any credence to their thoughts. When someone already believes that the protests are all violent, they aren't for a second, going to consider that rights are being taken away by the government's response to it. Uh doy. Of course not. To even claim their rights are taken away is a quick trip to shut up town because you're dumb and not worth listening to. Similarly, if someone tells you that all lives matter, we must immediately believe they're contradicting Black Lives Matter and any justification of themselves is now unworthy of thought and consideration. Both sides make their snap judgments, close their ears, and go away cursing the other.

It shouldn't be like this. And really, there should be an easy way to decide what's worth the time. let's simply put a number to it. If over one quarter of the population believes something, it's probably worth researching carefully. You can draw the line somewhere else, but if it's not a fringe belief, there just might be some legit reasoning behind it. Let's do a little more listening and a lot less assuming and a lot less grouping things that should not be grouped. The finer we make our groups, the more accurate we can be with our snap judgments. There is no "the protesters." There are "violent protesters" and there are "peaceful protesters." There are "protesters in Oregon" and there are "protesters in Washington." We need to stop lumping lest we make lumpy decisions. Let's make precise decisions instead. Stop lumping!

Memoirs and Last Testament

I can only imagine I will soon begin to die a slow and painful death and so I decided to write my memoirs before it was too late.

Life was always hard for me. I think many people saw my successes and probably thought I had it all together--completely oblivious to the pain and torment of my own mind. Other people, of course, thought I was a terrible jerk for one reason or another. I never could understand why since I tried so hard to be kind and understanding and I'd sooner blamed myself for all that went wrong rather than any other human. In fact, the one thing I wish to leave as a legacy is my persistent pursuit of promoting kindness and understanding in a world hell-bent on divisiveness, loathing, and selfishness. I wrote the book Christians Are Revolting as a means to express how Christians are no longer living out this very creed from Jesus and I used my own life and failures to explain it. I do wonder how much of it was my own false perspective from my own negativity, but Facebook at least makes me believe the situation is rather dire.

Despite my persistence in promoting kindness, I can't say I was always that great at it myself. My own demons haunt me, of course, like they do anyone else. I didn't always act out my greatest desires, but for such faults I am at least ashamed. I never did feel good enough for some reason. I enjoyed many successes but always felt the outcast. Perhaps it was merely impostor syndrome, but I also believe it was a simple manner of fitting in. Without being much like the rest of humanity, my successes didn't matter as I could never feel accomplished if I always felt shunned. And in some regard, success leads to all the more shunning. And so, I kept looking higher as if success was never achieved and I forever dreamt of more to come and the day that people would finally find my words and ideas to have value.

A penny for my thoughts, oh no I'll sell them for a dollar

They're worth so much more after I'm a goner

And maybe then you'll hear the words I been singin'

Funny when you're dead how people start listenin'

 

                                                           ~If I Die Young - The Band Perry

I hope this is true of me as well. Perhaps a legacy can live on once I am gone even if I never get to see it while I yet live. Alas, perhaps that is mere ego and thinking myself more highly than I ought. And if I failed to be what my main goal was, what good was I overall?

I wish I could have been better for those directly around me. I focused so much on the larger and grander scheme of things when my own children, wife, friends, and family could perhaps have done with a little more interaction. I wouldn't say I neglected anyone, but I never felt I went enough out of my way to make someone's day which is perhaps the better part of kindness. I focused perhaps too heavily on passive kindness and trying to prevent jerk behavior rather than promoting actual kind behavior. I focused on kindly trying to express ideas or comprehending another's ideas rather than kindly trying to make someone's day. I never did truly learn to love, I suppose, and I'm sure I've missed the many times it was shown to me due to my lust for changing the world for the better. I could have made the lives around me better instead, but I focused too much on the world.

I would like to apologize to my children if I seemed too distant, unreachable, and emotionally disconnected besides anger. I never got a handle on those softer emotions and quite nearly replaced everything with logic instead. Much like Spock, I found solace in logic and gave in to anger on occasion as part of my humanness. But most humans need more than that and I utterly failed to provide it. I've always cared, however, even if I lacked the skills to show it. I hope all the greatest success for you all and I hope I helped prepare you for the world more so than I gave you mental disorders to overcome. With any luck, you'll turn out a little bit better than me and your children in turn a little better than you. Let us keep a chain of progression.

To my wife as well, I wish I could have been more. We have been through a lot together and I can't help but believe most of our struggles were my own. Despite this, I found you to be an overall excellent partner. I found no one else on Earth who could understand me the way you have and who could put up with my crazy overly-dramatic dispositions. All this said, I just showed her my memoir here and she just rolled her eyes at me and said the poison ivy isn't going to kill me. Well, we'll just see about THAT!

Relativity in Relation to Life Satisfaction

Relativity is an interesting concept to ponder. Nearly every person's predicament on the planet today is far better than the predicaments of those 5000 years ago and yet we continue to see the woes of others when compared with ourselves. What exactly is the goal? When will we find that things are good enough? Nearly every human has it better than the animals of the wild, so from a moral standpoint, what is our ground for complaint? I have running water. Some people do not. I have access to computers while many others do not. Is this unfair? Does it matter? Is it something to rectify? Or is it something to accept? While I may have running water and computers, I still lack a second home, a private jet, and many things that yet others have. It has always been this way where some lack what others have. At what point is it a cause to take up arms and fight for?

I live in a rather unique country. I personally feel as if there is support to help anyone get on their feet and to be as successful as their mind can take them. Of course, how a mind matures is highly dependent on genes and culture. So is it truly fair to let the mind be the fulcrum by which we reach our heights? A great deal of success is also likely just luck which is quite similar to the conditions in which we are born: race, gender, country. Given the constraints of wherever it is and however it is we are born, we can be more successful than those around us if our ambition and minds so allow it. I may never be able to top Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, or Jeff Bezos, but I might very well do better than my neighbors and family. For someone born in the slums of India, it is even less likely that they'll compete with the 1% of America, but they might still compete with those nearest them. With enough ingenuity, perhaps they can have a shelter that blocks more rain, withstands more wind, and so on. Things that I take for granted might be the very things that sets one of them apart that brings them joy and satisfaction that even I may not have yet experienced.

Even though I may never be a billionaire, the privileges, comforts, and healthcare that I do possess is already a thousand times more than kings of the past. Anyone with running water is already surpassing our ancient ancestors. So by what means should we judge conditions? What should we fight for when it comes to fairness? I'm not sure this question has a great answer. It seems a lot like we ought to mind our own business and simply work with what we've got to get ahead. Despite growing up in the same area as others, I might be blessed with a mind that enables me to be more successful. Of course, I did not choose my own mind any more than anyone else. Then again, if we chose our minds, by what means could we even make such a choice unless our minds were first available? This relativity brings me right back to the same idea: things simply will be what they are. 

And this is a frightening thought. If this is true, it almost seems like things aren't worth fighting for. It seems like we ought to be every man for himself. And this would make for a terrible outcome. People absolutely must care and have the thoughts of others in their minds lest the world devolve into chaos which is good for no one. It does make me think, however, that perhaps we should focus more locally. Instead of the grand scheme of things, unless it is our responsibility to run a state or country, perhaps we should simply be the best we can be in our own neighborhoods under whatever conditions the world throws at us. Gain local support and renown. Attend to the injustices we see around us rather than even attempting to contemplate the entire world. 

But what of areas that are run-down and are in need of external support? Or should we care? Surely some location is the worst on the planet, but every other one is doing better than another. And most, still, are doing better than those in the past. It is truly relative. Perhaps we ought to let them simply sort it out themselves if it is not our local neighborhood? And if we truly care, maybe it's best to simply make it our neighborhood? After all, who better than those from within to correct it? It's far too complicated to know the next step of a population that is so many steps below you. It is far easier to see the next step when you're beside it. Maybe we ought to simply join the causes directly or else be quiet about them?

It all seems rather calloused to simply let others work it out themselves, yet at the same time the relativity of the situations allows for peace and joy that we might not think possible even in dire conditions. Sure, a group may lack Facebook and YouTube, but they might very well enjoy their non-tech lives. This relativity of experience and the culture one derives around it is exactly why some people choose to remain Amish. Had they not been raised Amish, it is quite likely they never would have chosen it. This relativity is a very powerful thing. I simply cannot resolve it in my mind. There are too many twists, turns, and caveats to really determine what the "best" course of action is. In the end, I am one of billions with impractical insight from having lived in my own bubble. What I deem important and right could very well differ from the very ones I may look down upon in sorrow. The Amish lifestyle is no way to live life, but only because I did not grow up within it. Still, it's hard to imagine that they were not simply brainwashed and that this, too, is something to correct. Culture and relativity might very well outweigh my many own perspectives of what is right. If people are happy where they are, who am I to complain? And if they are not, who are others to care? For anyone who might care, I find it intolerable that I do not have riches pouring out my ears, so if anyone would like to correct that, I'd be much obliged. Thanks in advance!

Zero Tolerance for Tolerance

The lessons we learn in our younger years are perhaps the hardest lessons to master. Perhaps it is good, then, that we learn them early to provide as much time as possible to work on them. Every sitcom and lecture provided to me as a child told of the woes of racism, sexism, and intolerance. Star Trek, among other space-faring serials, would quite often lead to a conflict requiring tolerance of different alien species. So much was it drilled in my head as a child that I had mistakenly believed that humans understood the message. If they didn't, why would all these shows be continually emphasizing it? I came to realize, however, that not only are humans bad at it (hence the continual attempts to teach it), it is often masked and hidden in plain sight.

I'd like to think that the majority of first-world humans knows that we do not discriminate based upon race or gender. One's skin color or gender is not something to determine whether or not a person is good or bad. That, however, is about as far as humans have comprehended it. If we were space-faring, we would be making enemies at every turn for this very reason. We struggle so evidently at the ability to recognize differences in thought as being similarly acceptable to differences in physical appearance. Instead, the only acceptable differences in humanity's eyes are skin color, male/female, and neutral tastes for food, fashion, and entertainment. We are so terrible at comprehending what tolerance truly means that we take race and gender tolerance to their extremes while foregoing all other forms of tolerance. Such extremes themselves beget intolerance in a guise of morality.

When we lack the ability to contrive of tolerance as an acceptance of differing ideas, opinions, and cultures based upon the genes and upbringing afforded to each of us, tolerance becomes a moral imperative of rigidity and rules. To be tolerant of gender becomes a requirement that women must be afforded all the same responsibilities and found in equal numbers to man. To think otherwise is now deemed intolerant when in fact tolerance would very much lead us to conclude that we ought to accept that there might be natural differences or, at the very least, that it is okay for someone to presume so even if it is not the case. Tolerance is the ability to accept a person for where they are as derived from whence they came without ousting them as evil. To do otherwise is no different than charging a person as evil for the skin in which they were raised. We simply don't choose it. Tolerance is the ability to agree to disagree or to even embrace differences without resorting to hatred.

Race and gender were the first categories that we humans have learned to tolerate. Some have since moved on to tolerating multiple views on religion, but unfortunately that is still a rather solid source of us versus them hatred and fear. Perhaps the final category, however, is that of a person's systems of morals, ethics, and virtue. This category is, by far, the hardest to overcome and is quite often tied to religion making it easily comparable in difficulty. In Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, he goes into great detail regarding the political left's and the political right's overarching methods of determining moral behavior. Such fundamental differences cause a great deal of hatred and, being moral in nature, are fairly immutable ideas. If it is immoral to me to wipe my feet on a flag, I can't hardly find it acceptable for another to do the same. That is what morals are, after all: the foundation of right and wrong. 

One cannot be fine with condoning what is wrong, and therefore one must be fine with being intolerant for another person's perspective if it differs. And this is exactly the very nature of tolerance that we, as a human species, must learn to accept. Different people find different things wrong and that is okay. The other direction is much more difficult however: different people find different things perfectly acceptable. Imagine we find an alien species whose children have sex with their grandparents. Are we going to be able to accept that species or are we going to attempt to show them the error of their ways? Perhaps for them sex does not have such a taboo whereas eating and defecating do and they'd find us similarly repulsive for dining rooms and public restrooms. There are so many ways in which right and wrong can differ between people and we need to find the proper line for tolerance.

Barring alien species, the intolerance I see today along a political line is absolutely appalling. It is so rancid with hatred that one cannot even request that we attempt to get along without being labeled as a Nazi. We have so utterly lost our way that we find such intolerance to be the only tolerable way. If you have not already come to my exact understanding and position when it comes to racism and sexism, then you are clearly an evil bigot bent on the destruction of the world. There is no room for you to speak, you are evil, and we might as well burn you at the stake like a witch. Everything you say is evil, you are simply trying to justify your behavior, and your dog-whistle word-choices are secret signs and ways of banding like-minded ill-intended bigots to your side. You must be stopped at all cost and there is no reason to give you a platform to voice your opinion ever again. Freedom of speech is not meant for you because you are clearly an evil, hating, misogynistic, racist pig.

Far be it from me to only provide one side of the argument however. You may say such things about me, but you're just being hateful yourself and pandering to criminals. You want to push down people who work hard for what they have just to give handouts to those who don't deserve it. You would steal from a CEO just to give his money to corrupt and lazy beggars who refuse to lift a finger in a country where all your dreams can come true with effort. You want to kill innocent babies just because you're too sleezy to keep your junk in your pants! You want to take away our rights, silence us, and bring us to our knees in submission until everyone is like everyone else. You are weak-willed, snobby, whiners, and complainers about every single tiny little offense! Your very breath is evil bent on destroying our country and bringing us to our knees like sheep to the slaughter! You must be stopped at all cost lest we die at your mercy!

This is our political climate. Tolerance of either side is clearly tolerance for evil and thus tolerance becomes a love of intolerance and intolerance becomes the only defense of true tolerance. It is disgusting. It is vile. We must rise above it, but we have quite the "chicken and the egg" problem. The only way to fix this is through a cultural shift and education of the masses. But how can we get that without already culturally shifting to encourage such tolerance and educate people regarding it? There are very few of us out there who see the need for such tolerance to begin with. I assume we need to continue to speak out and show the way, but this is an extremely self-detrimental action of loneliness and despair. The world hates a peacemaker and such efforts are met with hostility. It makes enemies of both and friends of few. Alas, it appears outside my nature to anything but that. And so, I write. And so I speak out. And so I try much to my own consternation.

But where do we draw the line, anyway? We can't let people molest children and simply claim they have a different idea of right and wrong! We can't simply let people go on treating black individuals as lesser than human and denying them rights, and we can't simply let people go on treating women as objects for their personal enjoyment. We must take a stand! Perhaps the trick is in preventing the behavior while allowing the belief. Despite disagreeing with such stances, we should at the very least be capable of comprehending that their minds were uniquely created to come to such differing perspectives. We cannot hate them for it since we do not get to choose the very nature by which our genes compose us and our culture grows us. We need not hate such people. We simply need to band together, as a collective, to decide what we will deem to be right and wrong for ourselves. That's what democracy is all about. And we need to learn to accept the overall choices and be fine with the differences of understanding even if we do not always agree or get our way. This is true tolerance. It is far more than skin color and gender. To focus too strongly on those is to do away with tolerance altogether. In the end, if a significant portion of a population believes something, there is a good chance there is a means by which it can be deemed acceptable even if untrue. We are not the epitome of righteousness and it is time to stop acting like we are.

The Fault with Reason in an Unreasonable World

The Chicken Who Couldn't Cross the Road

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

This quote rings persistently in my ears. A plethora of nuance reverberates throughout my soul by which I become unreasonably reasonable and thus useless as an agent for change. Never so simple are things which would cause a reasonable man to pick a side being left, right, black, or white. It would stand to reason that reason would be the best approach to any situation, and yet this seems not to be the case. In a world lacking reason for which attempted reason is reason enough to be outcast, it would seem that sensibilities ought to be ditched altogether. Reason, then, does little good but conflate the sorrow of the one yielding it for seeing what is there yet being powerless within reason to change it. Perhaps, then, it is reasonable at times to be unreasonable for the sake of reason, but it would seem hardly possible for a reasonable man to abandon what seems to be right. Can the ends truly justify the means to abandon reason as a reasonable resort?

Nuance is the enemy of those who perceive things to be simple. Folks of a particular pigment of skin are either held back by those of differing pigments or they are casting their own shadow and are the source of their own suffering. There is no room for something in between or both to be right in their own way. Each side has their logic built from sources of which are both right and wrong, but they are forever unwilling to see the truth of the other and the faults of their own. Speaking such things is quite nearly a crime for which some have lost their jobs. Through intolerance for hate, they themselves become hateful and rage at would-be persons of discourse. In matters of morality, dissent is evil due to the blinding light that clarity brings and words become but ruckus and deafening moans of demons. Tolerance begets intolerance to intolerance which, when precise, would be noble, but the err of humanity is to foible in our ways of judgement. Thus intolerance even for intolerance becomes equivalent to evil begetting evil. Humanity may never wield intolerance appropriately and would do better to err on the side of tolerating intolerance when manifest in words alone. But intolerance and indifference to another's pain is the way of the majority--especially when defending the pain of another.

The troubles of minorities are clearly seen through increased crime, arrests, poverty, and success, but what makes this so is the ire of all. Human behavior is known far too well for its inability to adequately judge. It is known for drawing false conclusions, making rash insinuations, and being altogether incompetent at judging the motives, understandings, beliefs, and perceptions of others. Humans project their own feelings and worries upon others assuming they might be of a same mind as themselves. This is rarely the case, however, and many people of all colors, shapes, sizes, and genders find themselves worrying over things that others never knew, saw, or intended. We might all have thousands of stories where we misunderstood someone's intentions and motives or were the recipients of such ill-perceived ideas. Even contemplating our means of bipedal motion inhibits our very ability to perform the task with ever-growing suspicion that someone else might notice the failure.

If anxiety gives rise to false assumptions of the motives of others and causes our own stumbling, it seems clear that this would be compounded greatly in a perceived scenario of life and death. If we believed we had to walk a certain way lest others judge us and kill us, we might find more often than not that we are ever-suspicious of those who see us as we traverse the earth. And being so suspicious, we may very well bring about our own destruction assuming the fact were true. Even if it were complete fabrication, we might still cause problems for ourselves through the building of anxiety that manifests itself in other pitfalls of behavior.

I have now said all one needs to hear from one side of the fence. Minds are made and judgement has been rendered through the perceived intentions of my writing. I am clearly of an intolerant mind and worthy of silence and death. I am but a depraved Nazi worthy of death for having the audacity to make such claims as I never even made. Such is reason in an unreasonable world. Having offended only half the unreasonable world, however, I am forced to continue. The reasonable man cannot stop until all are offended at his words and wish him dead.

Despite the story of self-inflicted over-anxious harm, this does not yield an immediate solution nor does it account for the full story. False assumptions may be made of one's supposed racially biased demeanor, and yet it ignores entirely that many people today are indeed still prejudiced. That itself also ignores that prejudice comes from perception of stereotypes and stereotypes come from experience or depiction derived from experience or stories and myths passed down. The oppression of the past becomes the cause of behaviors that become the experience for stereotype which become the cause for suspicion which become the cause for anxiety, the cause for reversed suspicion, the cause for anger and frustration, the cause for violence, the cause for being mistreated, the cause for more suspicion and anger. The cycle never ends and while one side claims racism the other side claims stats and both are entirely true. What, then, is the solution?

I have personally tried reasoning. If people could understand the nuance and the cyclical nature of the beast, if they could see their own involvement in the anxiety of the oppressed despite attempting to be an ally, if they could see the increased hatred they are engendering, if others could see the actual suffering that is withstood and find some compassion, if they could comprehend that their bubbles could never adequately reflect the bubbles of others, if all could learn not to project and to assume the best rather than jumping to inhospitable fountains of hatred spewing from their mouths, just maybe a solution could be found. Just maybe injustice could be rectified from all sides. Alas, there is no room for understanding. Lines have been drawn and pitchforks sharpened. The torches are lit and witches will be found. I could claim it is unnecessary, but in a world where human nature is to deny reason, then what other choice is there but to be unreasonable?

And so, I sit and watch. The battle commences and I couldn't hardly pick one side or another. The mass hysteria will lead to catastrophic pain, suffering, and even fatalities on either and both sides, but change will occur. Change that could have occurred through conversation and reasoning if it were within the competencies of the human race to conceive. Not being a skill to be possessed, however, I can do little but hide my face as the blood sheds and the cries ring out. It could commence until such time as reason becomes a more readily available skill or until one side crushes enough of the spirits of the other to dominate. And in so crushing, the history books will be written with the praises of the glorious battle against the oppressors. Those whose every fiber was racism or else whose every fiber was big brother. Our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends, neighbors, and coworkers, may forever go down in history as evil thwarted and in so doing restoring the rights of the innocent when indeed all were villains bent on hate and destruction. 

After such a war, whichever villainous side is claimed defeated will stew and grow and build until such time as the unreasonable war reignites itself unless humanity learns to value, promote, and teach reasonability from a young age. Such ability is the only potential for saving lives via courteous discourse. Until that skill is acquired, flaming tongues and witch hunts will be the norm for the progress of nations. I hope beyond hope that soon enough reason, logic, empathy, and introspection of the human condition will be taught as fundamental principles in our educational institutions. That we will fade out the inability to discourse through knee-jerk reactions of ineptitude and grow our future generations to value insight, knowledge, and kindly discourse as a means to solve disputes. This is our best hope at prolonging the human race. I just hope we find it in time.

Smear and Fear Needs an Overhaul

Ahh, once again the smell of politics hovers in the in the air like the waft of a stank fart. The glorious season has arrived--a time for smearing your opponents in order to gain a vote in your favor--a time to bask in the glow of our own superiority for being on the moral side of the political spectrum or for shouting our discontentedness at the slings and arrows overriding discourse on policy. What's odd is that we all know campaigns rely heavily on discrediting the opponent and we absolutely know it's a strategy. And yet it continues. The reason it continues is because it actually works. In a two-party system, one of the best ways to get a vote is through fear of the enemy. Make the enemy bad enough and scary enough and people will get off their couches to vote out of fear where they would rarely do so out of optimism.

This method, however, has bred great consequences. Campaign time never truly stops. The voting may stop, but the people need to be prepped throughout their lives. If we remain complacent and not outraged enough, we begin to realize that it hardly matters who we vote for. We must know that our enemy is up to no good because we did not get off the couch to vote and thus allowed the enemy free reign. By enraging us every day, we'll be far more likely to vote for whoever is the party representative of whichever party had the least amount of fear-generating poo flung on our faces. It forces us to pick a side and become advocates with our votes.

Despite knowing that smear and fear campaigns rule the election season, we fail to recognize it for what it is every day in every article that approaches us. If we can make the "other" side look like the enemy, we will gain more supporters come election time. And so, that is exactly what we do. And we do it so creatively (and mostly subconsciously) out of the actual belief that we are indeed right. You may notice I am saying "we." That's right, because we are part of it whether we realize it or not. The political divide as gotten so strong that we no longer need to intentionally and conspiratorially control people because we actually truly believe we are fighting an enemy so heinous that every lie we state is perceived as truth. We are so quick to judge and to preconceive the motives of the "other" that we believe the very straw men arguments we create for them and we believe in our own power to destroy them.

If we actually sit and listen to our opponents and give them the benefit of the doubt--if we consider that just maybe they believe what they're saying and that it's not some secret code or deprived motive behind it--we might learn that we agree far more than we disagree. The fundamental difference is mostly in how we achieve our common goals rather than the goals themselves. Nobody likes mass shootings, for example, but how we stop them is the fundamental concern. The left wants to have more gun control while the right wants to focus on the underlying cause of why someone would do it. Neither side really wants to kill babies. Neither side thinks that abortion is a great option or that women should be slaves. This narrative comes only from our mutual desire to value life in our particular way. And to get it our way, we must demonize the other with such nonsense and lies.

Sadly, all this feuding has severe impacts on social justice. The best place to divide and manufacture an enemy is along the lines of social inequality, unfairness, and immorality. If we make the enemy look like they're out to control or trying to destroy a particular people group, we can claim moral superiority. And who better to use as examples of the enemy's depravity than those whose unfairness and inequality is most on display? The oppressed become the dividing line. Neither side likes oppression, but if we can convince people that the oppression is due to the other side's negligence, we can garner support to "help" them. But that's all we truly care about is garnering the support for our virtuous side. Even the voters care about getting more voters than actually doing any good because the enemy is so evil that we must defeat them at all costs. We'll help the oppressed later.

It is easy enough to see that the oppressed are a mere tool to both sides because our chants and motives drive the most change in ways of alliance and hatred rather than in doing any actual good. Only recently did we start to focus on a single tangible outcome in police reform but seemingly as a side effect to the chant of black lives matter. Until then, the only thing we squabbled about was whether or not racism existed at all and whether or not we should use the word "black" or "all" in our chanting. What good was any of that? Why are we focusing on the words and labels rather than the actual changes necessary to make an impact? If we care so much about black lives that we're chanting black lives matter, then why are we chanting that phrase rather than chanting for police reform specifically? Or education reform? Or support to end poverty or to invest in infrastructure? Or any other multitude of solutions that would help black lives? Instead it's like the Red Cross chanting "Red Cross Rocks" as a means to garner support for their organization rather than requesting any blood.

The response to this observation is typically more evidence that the oppressed are being used as a tool. It is clear in my words that I recognize they are the oppressed and that I desire to help them. I made it clear that I am all about chanting how we can help them and I am only writing this piece as a means to have a greater impact in acquiring that change. However, despite all these obvious points, my sentiments are only ever refuted with accusations of my own evil. If I am not 100% on board with the chanting, that makes me an enemy. It has nothing to do with my desire to help and it has nothing to do with improving the lives of black folks. If it did, there'd be more focus put into how and less into framing people and pointing accusatory fingers. They would be far more strategic in how they approach the solutions and more willing to alter course in order to garner more support.

Now, don't take me for a minute to be saying that I'm telling the black folks how to speak out. To pretend I am saying that is to create a straw man on behalf of my argument and to subsequently burn it down in a rage (which is quite typical). No, I am speaking to the democratic party as a whole and to any individual who truly cares--not to the oppressed themselves. I am demonstrating and revealing how those who are not oppressed are using the oppressed as a means to alienated and divide our country on a supposed moral basis without intending to do any actual good. The oppressed have every right to shout about their plights without knowing the solutions. They have every right to take a knee or picket in the streets. As a response, however, we the unoppressed should not simply chant their chant with them. We should hear their chant, care about it, and start chanting some solutions alongside them or supporting those who do. Otherwise, we're simply charging our own virtue batteries at the expense of true support. That's not to say change won't occur this way, but if we force the change while throwing half the country under the bus as the enemy, we will never see peace. We will see more dividing and escalation of hatred. We cannot let anger, fear, and hatred be our rallying cries if we truly seek to be a force of good on behalf of the oppressed.

Unfortunately this method of smear and fear will continue and my words here will have little to no impact overall. It is impossible to avoid since it is the best method to garner votes. People are biologically prone to respond to this method and it will continue to work so long as we have a two-party system. And we will continue with a two-party system for as long as we continue to vote the way we do. This is because of the winner take all with a single vote strategy. A third party divides votes away from someone else we might otherwise be happy with. And so, to be strategic, we must always vote as a group for one or the other. Adding a third person weakens it and allows "the enemy" to get in. In short, we must always vote to avoid an evil rather than vote for who we truly want.

To work around this, we must abolish the two-party system. This would abolish the smear and fear and subsequently abolish hatred and division. The only way to abolish the two-party system is to enable Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). By doing so, we can vote for who we truly want without "wasting" our votes. People will then be forced to emphasize why they are good candidates rather than why so many other people are bad ones. Increasing the number of opponents will make it far easier to uplift oneself rather than to put down all the rest. Voting reform is the first step to many better solutions. It is the first step to removing our dividing lines and once again recognizing that those who think differently than us are truly necessary and not simply evil. We have different minds and experiences and it is necessary to give each mind room to breathe and speak. If we don't, we continue to devolve until another war breaks out. Let's end the hatred. Let's stop buying into the hate and recognize that our opponents are not indeed opponents. They are our friends, family, and coworkers. They're all around us. And they all need a voice without being falsely accused of evil.

 

The Bubble Conundrum

I often contemplate the various plights of the world and burden myself with the ever-present load of attempting to rectify what I find wrong. Being a middle-class nobody, this quite often entails discussion and attempts at convincing others of what I see in hopes to spread ideas. In other words, I am a Facebook troll (at least by some definitions). I am kind and courteous, but others do not perceive me that way when I bring up topics that quickly enrage them. This, of course, spews hatred in my direction which often begs the question if I'm doing any good at all or even, perhaps, making things worse.

If my attempts to benefit mankind reap no benefits--and especially if they cause harm--then I would be far better off attempting to do nothing. I come to conclude quite often that I ought to stop which is temporarily relieving, but it rarely lasts as I can't hardly feel like a good person if I am not trying to fix what is wrong with the world. How can I go on my merry way with a cheery smile while so much sucks for so many others? How can that be good? And yet, who am I to think I know what ought to be done? Mind you, I'm thinking from a larger and grander scale. I'm considering the whole of racism and sexism, religion, politics, and more. And from that perspective, perhaps I am even more of a terrible person to assume I could even know enough to attempt to rectify such things.

And so, I am often caught perceiving myself as terrible for trying and terrible for not. Given this self-imposed dichotomy, perhaps what makes the most sense is to focus more on my smaller sphere of influence. I should look at my family, neighbors, and coworkers and try to help them. Not help them understand my grander schemes of the universe, but via the minimum good that I can do while forgetting about the larger scale. I, myself, can ensure that I am not being unfair in my dealings with others and I can stand up when I see unfairness occur around me. While sounding good on paper, my bubble rarely has such terrible occurrences which is supposedly half the problem with the greater issues. It is our privilege to never see the plights of others. My bubble is typically well enough while so many other bubbles are suffering.

If everyone felt a responsibility to their smaller bubbles, then clearly we'd have no problems whatsoever. The pitfall with that philosophy, of course, is that not everyone does nor will feel such responsibility. So in bubbles where this feeling of responsibility is not occurring, who will save them? And yet, if not within the bubble, who are we to even know any saving needs to occur? And even if such saving is needed, if it is not our bubble, can it really be said to be our problem? Given the relativity of everything, there is an obvious flaw in trying to help another bubble from the perspective of our own. Should an advanced civilization truly attempt to improve upon the bubble of a more primitive one? I think history and Star Trek have proven time and again that non-interference is typically a better strategy. 

So where should we draw the lines of non-interference? And what point is it better to say that a bubble is better off learning and growing on its own? This is especially challenging in such a global economy. Is the world one bubble? Is a continent a bubble? A country? State? County or city? Can they be ideological with bubbles of Christian, Muslim, Atheist or otherwise? Political? I think our bubbles are much like Venn diagrams but with too many dimensions to truly comprehend. So again, where does the rule of non-interference take place? We seem perfectly fine in the United States allowing third-world countries and tribal groups to manage their own bubbles and grow, so how would this be any different than, say, allowing ghetto areas to deal with their own problems? They may belong to the bubble of the United States, but does that mean they belong to the bubbles of the rest of us? 

Perhaps the Government should care about ghetto bubbles and yet those of us outside should not? And yet, we vote for what our government does and who is in charge so it could hardly be said that they are not a part of our bubble. Our government also deals with other countries, however, and provides aid to other people. So once again, our bubble has now become that of the world. There must be a better means of narrowing down our own responsibilities. The universe likely has a plethora of sentient species and creatures that can feel pain, but we'd be fools to assume it is our responsibility to minimize the pain and suffering of them all. So where does it end? At what point is it okay to callously shrug our shoulders at the plight of others and pawn it off as someone else's bubble? 

In the end, it truly is all relative. My pain is not the same as another's. My first world problems not those of primitive tribes. Does that mean my pain is meaningless? Of course not. Within my sphere, pain is still pain. Compared with another bubble, the mere bubble itself would be pain to me and yet contains both pain and joy for those within. Not having a toilet is pain for me and yet having a fresh hole for a toilet could be joy to another. The relativity of suffering makes it so much harder to know what is truly worth intervening on behalf of.

And so, I just don't know what is worth fighting for. Without knowing, I can never comprehend how I might be good if I simply enjoy my own life. Thus, my life is filled with misery. Perhaps this is itself worse than the bubbles of those whom I'd otherwise wish to help, but such a thought would likely make me a terrible person.

What Left and Right Really Mean When Discussing Racism

#BlackLivesMatter, #SystemicRacism

• What it Should Mean
• I notice a trend in which Black people appear to be treated unfairly and are often detained or even killed for things at much higher rates than that of white people under similar circumstances. This often makes it harder for a black person to get ahead and compete in the world. I do not mean this to indict any particular blame on any grander people group. Some people do it intentionally and others do it due unintentionally, but whatever the cause, I wish for it to stop. Their lives are important to me and I would like it to be easier for them to succeed.
• What People Hear:
• By selecting these exact phrases, I hear you saying that I don't believe black lives matter and that I and the entirety of white people have rigged the game against them. If you think I do not value black lives, you are calling me racist.
• How They Respond:
• Most Opponents
• Since you think I'm racist, I need to defend myself. I am not a racist and I will do everything in my power to prove to you I'm not racist. I'm the kind of person who values ALL life #AllLivesMatter. I will now hear nothing of your argument because I'm too consumed with defending myself against your unwarranted attack. 
• An Offended but Once-Potential Ally for Black Lives
• Few Opponents: 
• Like hell they do. They're thugs and jerks.
• An Actual Racist
• How People Respond to the Response:
• Saying #AllLivesMatter is nonsense because only black lives are on the line. You are trying to take the burden off black lives to hide your racism. 
• Unknown and unfair insinuation. Perhaps true for some, perhaps not for others. Destroys hopes of potential ally.

#WhitePrivilege

• What it Should Mean
• The difficulties of being black are hard for a white person to comprehend because they're not in the same situation and facing these challenges day in and day out. It's also very hard to pinpoint because it's like death by a million cuts. So any one thing I point to will look menial and worthless, and the bigger picture is just too hard to articulate and be grasped by those who are lucky enough to not have to deal with it.
• What People Hear:
• I most often hear this phrase as an insult. I am often told to "check my privilege" or "ha, exactly what a privileged person would say!" or "you're too caught up in your privilege to see what's right in front of you." You are calling me blind and again you are calling me racist. 
• How They Respond:
• Most Opponents
• Since, once again, you think I'm racist, I need to defend myself. You called me blind, stupid, and incapable just because I am white. This is actual literal racism. You are insulting me and blaming me for something that has nothing to do with me just because I am white. I am no longer listening to your racist anti-white rubbish.
• An Offended but Once-Potential Ally for Black Lives
• Few Opponents: 
• Ha, I'm privileged because I'm better and screw your desire to help them.
• An Actual Racist
• How People Respond to the Response:
• Ha! Racism against white people. Hilarious. Boo hoo, poor you. Black people are DYING and you're crying about me pointing out your privilege of not having to deal with black issues.
• Unfair. It is indeed racism. It may not be "as bad" but that doesn't matter. What black people deal with in America is not as bad as some other things going on in the world so should we similarly boo hoo them? Of course not. If you think that is a valid response, then you are indeed saying that white lives and feelings don't matter just because black ones have it worse. Relative comfort is not important here. We should never intentionally put someone down just because they defend themselves from a perceived attack.

Do X or Stop Y!

• What it Should Mean
• I've noticed the above confusion. I've come around and now understand the situation. Things could have been easier for me to see it if x was done instead of y. I think by doing x, we could have more allies and get more accomplished.
• What People Hear:
• You're doing it all wrong, that's why it's not working. Let me tell you what you should do in this situation because I'm too stupid to realize that I don't have a clue what's going on.
• How They Respond:
• You're a dumbass. Don't tell me what to do. You can't tell the oppressed how to deal with the oppressor. You're white, you couldn't even understand!
• Unfair. Being white doesn't stop a white person from comprehending what would help a white person better understand.
• How People Respond to the Response:
• A dumbass, am I? The oppressor, am I? Well, now I am offended and will no longer listen to your position nor try to help. You're too far gone and caught up in your foolishness.
• An Offended Ally No Longer Willing to Help

#NotAllCops, #BlueLivesMatter, #AllLivesMatter, #DontKneel, #GoTrump, #StopRioting, #StopLooting, etc, etc

• Okay, not all of these are real Hashtags, but this is all backlash from the above. Sure, there are a few people who are straight-up racist, but the argument is generally that you're not referring to those kinds of racist people and that it's more subconscious or whatever. If you truly believe that, then you should certainly have a lot more allies on the right, yes? So why don't you? Because all the above is so poorly handled and nobody is willing to do anything but shout. Everyone is angry, everyone is frustrated, everyone is tired of it. Even those who are anti-kneeling are probably only anti-kneeling because they're so sick of the drama and being called racist in the above dialogues that they just want to watch a football game instead of being reminded of these terrible back and forth conversations. We can do better.

Offended Ears Never Hear

Many times I have come to the conclusion that offended ears never hear. It's become a common idea and a way of understanding the world for me. I had no idea, however, just how hard it would be to share this concept with others. I thought it would be a fairly well-known psychological phenomena that people would just pick up and comprehend. I tried searching for a good quote to share that would hold more weight than my own statements, but it seems to be entirely missing from the internet. Nobody is talking about it.

This topic mostly comes up for me when discussing social injustice. Perhaps this is why it cannot be heard. I am usually relaying this gem of wisdom to irate people which, as I should obviously know, will not be fruitful. And when I try to make it work, people usually get angry with me which makes me angry at them and nobody hears anything anymore.

The reason I bring this up in conversation is because I am deeply vested in social change. I want so badly for things to be better for everyone and I am super empathetic to the plight of all people whether black, white, red, yellow, blue, male, female, transgender, straight, gay, etc. When I see left vs right political discourse, it is quite nearly always in the form of mockery and offense. While those who agree with the disposition will approve, applaud, and encourage such behavior, it will have absolutely zero benefit for changing the mind of the target. If people are posting these things for the supposed purpose of social change, they are then actively working against themselves. If they do not care if it's helpful, then they are simply ranting and can't hardly be said to care for the cause they so desperately claim to care for.

Not only do offended ears lack the ability to hear, the owners of such ears will immediately go into defense mode. And when in defense mode, they will justify their every belief and opinion and become even more entrenched in it. Round and round it goes, left vs right, offending each other and helping each other dig their respective trenches. This is the opposite of supporting social change. Quite often I hear that silence is akin to condoning and that now is the time to take a stand, but silence would be far more appropriate than causing offense. Causing offense is more akin to condoning the behavior since you've given up all hope in making a change and actively make it worse. If you truly believe that something is so intolerable, then you should do whatever is in your power to benefit the cause and refrain from doing anything that will hinder the cause. And offending others is one very quick way to make matters worse.

Just think about it: can you come up with a single point in time where offending someone changed their mind? If you can, congratulations. By contrast, however, can you think of a time where offending someone made them more obstinate and set in their ways? I am sure you can think of many more. It is a very simple fact of human psychology.

And so, I quite often point to this obvious fact when the slings and arrows are dancing through the air of the Facebook feeds. I stand right in the middle of the arrows shouting, "Hey! This isn't helping!" and I get the oh-so-common retort of "You're just a white male! You can't possibly know how it feels! How dare you tone police us!!" or, of course, "You're just a snowflake! If you hate America so much, why don't you just leave?! Ooh, did I hurt your feelings?? Go home and cry to mommy!" A clear case of missing the point. And, of course, these are hurtful and offensive things which, given enough arrows to the heart, will eventually bring me down with everyone else. And so, I get angry and say something hurtful myself and become one of the masses. Where will it end?

I often hear in response, "Well, we tried being nice!" Okay, well, I guess that sums it up, right? Clearly niceness doesn't work, so let's be mean! Well, being offensive and rude is guaranteed to backfire. Kindness and patience stand a chance of changing people's minds, but it's not a microwave. It takes time, effort, consistency, trust, and not actively working against yourself. One by one, if we can calmly and rationally explain the situation to someone without offending them, we can gain another ally. With enough allies, policies change and social improvement can be had. The alternative is straight-up war. You've had enough, they can't be reasoned with, but hey, they still exist and will never relent, so the only remaining option is to fight to the death. That may be an option, but let's consider for a moment that we've already tried this as well. We've already had the war. Whoever wins the war gets their way, but only for a while and it only takes us so far. The losers will still exist but with less power. Resentment continues and grows. And while we got a little bit of what we wanted, the outcome is yet more bickering, fighting, and leading to the next war.

So when does it end? It ends when we teach effective communication. It ends when we care more for understanding another person's perspective and being considerate of their feelings in the way things are discussed so that they do not activate defense mode and their ears can remain open. This is not a war of comparison on who has it worse. This is not a "woe is the ignored white-man's feelings" attempt. This is an attempt to recognize what is best for everyone. The offended will absolutely not come rushing to your aid. Until we learn this, we will forever dig deeper into our holes of hatred.