I'm glad it helps. :)

Actually, this is mildly cathartic, having an outlet for all those "should've, could've" thoughts...

Involve others with more experience.

• If you need to choose a school, ask on /r/lgbt.
  
• When it's time to find a therapist, ask on /r/asktransgender.
  
• When you need to tell your parents, or even just need to decide whether to tell your parents, find a local peer group (GSA) with whom to practice the discussion.
  
  Learn about your community.
  
  
• Read "The nearest exit may be behind you", "Gender Outlaws: TNG", "Whipping Girl", "Transgender History". These will not be your problems, or necessarily your life, but you will find your people in them and a connection to an otherwise foreign community. (It sucks to be trans, nobody understands.)
  
• Find opportunities to participate in queer culture. Being T is not the same as being LGB. It's tempting to pull away, since yours is an issue of identity and not one of sexuality (and they really are extraordinarily different). Resist the temptation, be a part of something, force your way in and tolerate the inconsistencies, it will be worth it.
  
  Heal thyself.
  
  
• Your attitude and self-awareness is awesome, but your background and environment is not. I had a virtually identical home life (one fewer younger siblings, but the rest aligns right down to the lawyer parent!), and even after I "got over" it, it took years to really put the internalized prejudices of my youth away. Don't rationalize it away, don't be hard on yourself when you can't just get over it.
  
• Go to therapy. Find someone you really click with, and who you feel understands you, and invest the time and trust in that relationship to make the most of it. Don't tell them what they want to hear, tell them what you feel, and remember that they fully expect you to be totally wrong about your own feelings the first few times. Figure it out together. You should be able to get this nearly for free at the right college, make the most of it.
  
• If it feels awkward, you're doing it right. Cut yourself some slack, everyone has a hell of a time growing up and finding themselves, and thanks to your situation you'll be doing at 19 what most work out at 12. It's ok. Laugh at yourself, reflect and learn, and move on.
  
• Find a fringe benefit. If you dwell on gender dysphoria, it can seem pretty shitty. If you mire yourself in transition, it can seem like a thankless, endless slog. Find something to be excited about, find a part of yourself to enjoy, and don't feel guilty about it. :)
  
  
  Finally, and most importantly, you do belong.
  You don't have to be presenting in your preferred gender to go to a support group. You don't have to start HRT to comment on a board. There's a pervasive sense among trans folk that there are real trans people out there and we're not they. But the moment you recognize this part of yourself you're a part of our world whether you like it or not, and all of us feel just as different. Smile, introduce yourself, and share aspects of yourself among friends who have those same parts and who are just bursting for the opportunity to talk about it with anyone who understands.
  
  Sigh, I could ramble on, but I need to get back to work... I guess I can sum it up in promising, cross my heart, the world is a beautiful and wonderful place, and you're going to love it out here. :)

Great write up, and important things to remember going forward, and when addressing criticism of the system.

After reading this, I had some concerns and thoughts about the Federation, myself. I did a little write-up for my own self-reference, but I'm thinking it might be fruitful to share here.

Don't know whether it'd be considered off topic, but I think this kind of discussion is always useful.

Some of it is a little dated now, and perhaps not entirely relevant to this discussion, but here's what I wrote:


>Firstly, I must state that I found the book enlightening and informative. But particular issues have been playing on mind that I feel should be addressed in order to ensure the democratic confederalist system transcends the paradigm of the war itself, and becomes a legitimate entity in some kind of post-war Syria.

>I find it most appropriate to deal with the individual issues separately, as follows:

>The deification of Abdullah Ocalan - Reading the authors’ observations on democratic confederalism, one of my primary concerns was with the seeming deification of Abdullah Ocalan by Kurdish activists and, more significantly, the YPG/J. The personality cult that seems to exist around Ocalan, in Northern Syria, will only feed critics who denounce the Federation as a ‘Kurdish cult’. Holding Ocalan in such high esteem also contradicts democratic confederalist values of equality between people and a rejection of hierarchy. Even though Ocalan’s importance is primarily spiritual, and his thoughts on the dem-con ideology is inseparable from the project, it risks alienating non-Kurdish elements that might otherwise seek a dialogue with the Federation or see the benefits of entering into a similar confederation.

>PKK ties - Continuing on from my concerns about the deification of Ocalan, another significant obstacle to attracting a wider base of support for the Federation comes from its relationship with the PKK. It is inappropriate to label the YPG, or indeed the PYD (or indeed, TEV-DEM) an ‘arm’ or ‘offshoot’ of the PKK. But it is also impossible to deny that without the PKK the Federation would not exist. PKK affiliates (armed and political) provided logistical support to the early revolutionaries, and earlier councils models in Kurdish Turkey inspired the Syrian council system as it is today. Going forward, the ideal would be for the Federation to denounce all ties to the PKK or, failing that, to distinguish between the PKK’s armed and political wings. Though this is highly unlikely, more must be done to promote the Federations distinctly Syrian identity, to defer from criticism from (primarily) Turkey that the PKK and Federation are one in the same.

>Transparency - Another principle of democratic confederalism is transparency with the people. To this end, regular publication of the canton’s demographics and council makeups may help to dispel criticisms that the Federation is ‘Kurd-dominated’ or ‘Kurd-centric’. Furthermore, the Federation should go above and beyond to promote and publicise inclusion of Arabs within the council system. The Democratic Council might also do well to regularly restate its commitment to a unified Syria. This will help to detract criticisms that the Federations backers are separatists. Also linked to this is the need to be more transparent about actions taken against ENKS. Some inclusion of more Islamist-orientated political parties would also help win over some popular support, in this regard. The Federation's highly secular outlook might prove problematic going forward if it excludes genuinely popular, grassroots Islamist movements.

>Disband all military councils west of Euphrates (with exception of Raqah) - In another move to ease western (primarily Turkish) concern over SDF ‘aggression’, disbanding the Jarablus and al-Bab military councils, as a sign of goodwill, might go some way to improving the Federation’s relations with its neighbours.

>Disband/reorganise Asayish - Centre of most scandals within the Federation, the Asayish are difficult to independently oversee and regulate during wartime. Their arbitrary arrests and lack of transparency provide fertile opportunity for political opponents to claim discrimination. Human Rights Watch notes multiple war crimes accusations made against Asayish. In order to rebuild trust between communities and police, Asayish will need to be replaced, and all members re-organised. Those against whom accusations have been made should be handed over to international courts.

>Education boards - One of my main concerns when reading the book, was that education was too loosely regulated. Whilst it may not be a problem at the moment, without a centralised education system, the education system is vulnerable to subjective influence from a number of groups. The book focuses on the reclamation of ‘Kurdish’ education (Kurdish culture, Kurdish language) and brushes over the wishes of the Arab populations. To this end, more must be done to ensure the impartiality of the education system, and prevent it becoming too influenced by parents. In the west, at least, educational autonomy has proved dangerous as common narratives are allowed to creep into historical paradigms (we are taught what is commonly accepted, not what is necessarily true). Without a radical overhaul of the education system, I would feel the introduction of educational boards (who work with the educational committees) to be the best way of ensuring political neutrality prevails in schooling up to the age of 16.

>Economic agreements w/centralised body - To me, the book’s weakest point is in its assessment of the Federation’s economy. What kind of centralised body will take shape in post-war Syria is yet to be seen, but it will undoubtedly need to develop a relationship with the Federation in regards to oil distribution across the country. An area rich in oil, like Jazyra, again must co-ordinate with a centralised organisation in order to ensure the fair distribution of natural resources to as many civilians as possible. In order to ensure this, the Federation - in any future negotiations - must push for regulations, such as price-capping in future sales, in exchange for oil. This way, natural resources are distributed as evenly as possible, with a safeguard against exploitation by outside bodies.

>For all its strengths, the book fails to really look deeply into how successful the system of governance is. Instead, its authors are too preoccupied with saying how wonderful everything is, without giving us a clue as to how the actual civilians view it. Save for some examples of economic co-operatives (TEV-DEM’s spin on kibbutz, I suppose), the book fails to paint a real portrait of life in the Federation’s cities, aside from its descriptions of the governing system. It also fails to look critically at the system, instead painting opposition with one broad stroke - as though it were one big anti-PYD conspiracy.

The Soul of Man Under Socialism by Oscar Wilde -- an introduction to libertarian socialism, a foreign topic to most people ("isn't that, like, an oxymoron?") but pretty rewarding and interesting once you get into it.

If you care about current events (and this one is highly important), you can read about what's going on in Rojava, in Northern Syria. To understand the character of what they're doing there and their social revolution you can read Murray Bookchin and Abdullah Ocalan. They've both written a lot but it doesn't take much to understand the gist of their ideas and, more importantly, how they're being applied right now in Rojava. Democratic confederalism is the name of the specific system at work in Rojava.

Books I can recommend that have to do with the above:

A Small Key Can Open A Large Door: Rojava Revolution

Rojava: An Alternative to Imperialism, Nationalism, and Islamism in the Middle East

To Dare Imagining: Rojava Revolution

Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan

Most everything on this list

War and Peace in Kurdistan

Democratic Confederalism

Obviously that's a fairly dense list. You don't have to read all those. But I do suggest you at least look into Rojava and the ideology behind it on a basic level, as in my opinion it's one of the most important developments in the world right now and it's fascinating to see the application of democratic confederalism, autonomous self-organization, ethnic and religious plurality, and women's liberation on such an impressive scale.

On the topic of movies, it just so happens that there are a number of Rojava documentaries which might help you gain a basic understanding of what it's like there. You can find plenty by looking up "Rojava documentary". Here's a good one. This is the most recent, I believe.

Good studies!

>So AEI and Free Press both told Charles Murray to find certain things and then they published it and you think he doesn't believe these things?

Explicitly? Maybe not but that's not how conflicts of interest generally work. The point is that if Murray had a change of heart or found evidence that contradicted Hoya beliefs, he'd have to consider whether to publish it because it would mean losing out on that funding.

>What about his co author? Are you accusing Harvard of pushing for Hernstein to fabricate the disparity of IQs between the races? This claim is absolutely bizarre.

Let's just accept for the sake of argument that Herrnstein had no conflict of interest. So what?

How does that change Murray being funded by a group that wants a specific conclusion? Are you telling me that it's not a conflict of interest for creationist biologists to be funded by the Discovery Institute, or for Andrew Wakefield to be funded by a pharmaceutical group that wanted to sell a new kind of vaccine?

>You realize that the difference in IQs among the races isn't actually a good thing for libertarians or conservatives? It's much harder to have an ideology that says pull yourself up by your bootstraps, when different races are either significantly less or more intelligent than each other. It makes it even worse if the difference is genetic, since that would be very hard to solve, granted the bell curve doesn't make the claim that the difference between the races is all genetic.

It helps the conservative positions because it means we can reject a lot of social policies like affirmative action.

>So we are still not sure what is causing the difference, but we will get closer to the answers as we progress in our abilities to collect better data.

As we collect more and more data it becomes even more clear that the genetic explanation can't explain what we see.

>I would say when someone is going to benefit by making the wrong decision/choice about something.

Like getting a steady paycheck for finding certain results?

>You haven't even come close to showing a conflict of interests with the authors of the Bell Curve. I think you should if you want to pursue this accusation any farther. I'd like some hard evidence that you have that shows Murray was explicitly set to benefit for putting the IQ and race stuff in his book. It seems to me it's made him worse off by making him a pariah to many and being slandered left and right.

Let's just be clear - you think if someone did research for the AEI and attempted to get it published, journals would not require those people to declare the AEI as a conflict of interest?

>I don't think you know what a conflict of interest is. It's not a conflict of interest if I work for an evolution think tank and write a book about evolution. Evolution is true, there is no conflict.

What's an evolution think tank?

If someone worked for a group which had in its aims to discover scientific truths and investigate the world wherever it leads us then no it wouldn't be a conflict of interest. But if someone were to study gender differences and they worked for a radical feminist think tank, that would be a conflict of interest because the nature of the organisation has a vested interest in certain outcomes.

I understand conflicts of interest very well, I've done research in the private sector funded by organisations hoping to find certain outcomes with their products. You have to be extremely careful in this setup as there are a million ways in which it can bias your research without you realising and you need to declare it outright because people need to be aware that it could be affecting your results.

>So if you disagree with someone who funded research you should refuse to use it? Should we have burned all the scientific and medical research done by the Nazis or should we have used it?

Who said we should refuse to use it?

It means we should be skeptical. If the only people who can find evidence of a genetic link are those funded by white supremacists hoping to find that black people are genetically inferior, then we have to question how unbiased their research is.

>He literally published a book about the issue in 1973. You would have known about that if you went down to his published works. I guess I should challenge you about your baseless claim about Herrnstein. Where did you find that information about him? He clearly had been looking at the subject for at least two decades before the publishing of the Bell Curve.

Why would you think publishing a book is relevant to what we're talking about?

Like I said, I'm a Herrnstein fan boy, I know what he's published. At most he published a couple of commentaries on intelligence research. Just look at his research history - did you not find it strange that there are hundreds of results about research with pigeons?

Unfortunately, it's a reality of the field that, especially starting out, you'll do the best by being mobile, living light, and traveling cross-country to follow jobs. After you've built up a network, it's easier to pick and choose where you want to work. Embrace the shovelbum lifestyle for a few years and it can be a blast, but it's not without its tradeoffs. For more tips, I'll recommend [this book] (https://www.amazon.com/Field-Archaeologists-Survival-Guide-Management/dp/1611329280/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1482344207&sr=1-1&keywords=chris+webster) as well as some of the Archaeology Podcast Network shows.

In addition to shovelbums/archyfieldwork/usajobs, you can also search for archaeology jobs though sites like indeed.com or even craigslist. Jobs posted by large environmental firms show up on the former and sometimes small archaeology shops show up on the latter.

Also check with your SHPO to see if they maintain a list of local cultural resources firms and then browse their websites for job postings. By far though, you'll find the most jobs through your network. After you land your first job, maintain good contact with coworkers you like and respect. Be sure to pass along job postings to them and they'll likely do the same. Conferences, especially regional conferences, are also good resources for networking - even if you don't find a job directly, it's good to keep up with who is doing what kinds of research and where and will help you define your own interests and direct who you might like to work and/or study with in the future. Don't go broke trying to attend every conference in the hopes of getting a job though.

P.S. Don't forget to send R. Joe or Jennifer a donation (or buy them a conference beer!) if/when you get a job through their sites!

Yes, read the stuff in the sidebar. You can go in whatever order you are drawn to, but here are the functions of each text (as I see it):

• Listen, Little Man! by Wilhelm Reich--brainblast for the truly muddled/muggled, inspiring for the openminded and scathing/repulsive to the closeminded (helps filter out closeminded visitors)
  
• The Ignorant Schoolmaster by Jacques Ranciere--deeply initiatory text, bears careful reading to see how it deconstructs the illuminati dialectic
  
• Sorcery by J. Finley Hurley--introduction to sorcery from a scientific and data-based perspective
  
• Society of the Spectacle by Guy DeBord--seminal text on the spectacle, defining it and why it's a problem, and (haven't finished reading it but I imagine) some ideas of what to do about it
  
• Stolen Lightning: The Social Theory of Magic by Daniel O'Keefe--haven't read yet but I understand it's a great broad overview of a view of magic that is acceptable to scientists
  
• The Corruption of Reality: A Unified Theory of Religion, Hypnosis, and Psychopathology by John Schumaker--great theory of sorcery from a scientific/psychological perspective. Ties together those big three in the title very well with a unified theory.
  
• What is Philosophy?, Anti-Oedipus, and A Thousand Plateaus by Deleuze and Guattari--incredible authors and some of the founders of poststructuralist critical theory
  
• Cyclonopedia by Reza Negarestani--heavy numerology and Nick Land-related sorcerous politics
  
• Meltdown by Nick Land (in Fanged Noumena)--good intro to Nick Land
  
• Apocalyptic AI by Robert Geraci--haven't read yet but it overviews the AI situation
  
• Plato's Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato by Francis Cornford--zummi highly recommends as an ancient example of sorcerous narrative
  
• The Zen TV Experiment--nice little piece about the influence of TV
  
• Lots more in the reading list thread and reviews thread
  
  In general, I find that reddit is an amazing learning technology, because by viewing the front page over several months you repeatedly and frequently expose yourself to the language of a learning community (and many of them). Over time, I find that the discussions within a given community begin to make sense. So stick around and keep following your curiosity--especially the sidebar readings--and you'll figure it out :-).
  
  And please ask as many questions as you like. Those newbie question posts are some of the best discussions and conversation starters. This stuff is hard to talk about and people like to help so asking a question gives people a way to start drawing out their knowledge.

JK: There is a lot of validity to this parallel. In their book Partisan Hearts andMinds, Green, Palmquist, and Schickler argue that political parties are akin to a deep social identity. The work of Jennings, Stoker, and Bowers (among many others!) find that partisanship is generally adopted early in life and remains constant through one’s adulthood. Just like religion, children are generally likely to adopt their parents’ political views, particularly in more politicized households.

It is certainly common for people to use a political party as a prescription for their beliefs. In Follow the Leader, Gabe Lenz shows that policy positions generally do no drive how individuals vote. Instead, he finds the opposite: individuals first choose which candidate they want to support, THEN adopt that candidate’s policy positions.

One issue that we think many Americans know a lot about is abortion. Thus it can serve as an interesting test for the role of policy positions in how individuals adopt their political parties. In a series of articles and a new book, Achen and Bartels ask: “Do people vote Republican because they are conservative on abortion? Or are they conservative on abortion because they are Republicans?” What is the causal direction between abortion attitudes among voters and their partisanship.

They find that for some set of voters, particularly women, you see a movement toward the party that matches their views on abortion. They find that, “Almost half of 1982 pro-choice non-Catholic Republicans had disappeared from the party by 1997.”

But on the other hand, you see a significant number of voters who remain with their party and adopt their party’s view on abortion. Achen and Bartels also find that “More than half of 1982 male pro-life Democrats had become pro-choice by 1997.” These voters changed their views on abortion to match their partisanship rather than the other way around.
Even on the issue of abortion, you see a large number of voters who use their political party to determine their political beliefs. Thus Achen and Bartels conclude, “Most of the time, the voters are merely reaffrming their partisan and group identities at the polls. They do not reason very much or very often. What they do is rationalize.”

I'm a former Texas CRMer (F32). It really will depend on what your project is and where it's located. Certain parts of Texas are very dry and others are incredibly humid.

If you can afford it before your first paycheck, I would definitely invest in a 2-3 lt hydration bladder to use in your LL Bean backpack (3 lt is better). As demosthenes83 said, you can use it later once you get a new pack. I love my camelback bladders because of the warranty, but you can pick up an off-brand at Walmart or Amazon for cheap. Depending on your project you'll be refilling this when you stop at the truck for lunch.

I would upgrade your boots as soon as you can. Especially if you'll be doing surveys. You can't work if you have an injury due to inadequate footwear. Budget around $100-$150. I really like Keen. That being said, if you are working in West Texas you will likely have to replace them frequently so don't spend too much. (I've had cacti thorns coming up through my insoles after a month surveying in a new pair of boots.)

Your Magellan shirts should be fine, at least to start out. Figure out what will work for you before you start spending money on field clothes. Most of my office gets long sleeve shirts from the Columbia Outlet. They have great deals and are perfect for summer fieldwork. Goodwill is great too. Also avoid wearing heavy pants unless you are working in dense scrub brush. Anything lightweight, long sleeved, and moisture wicking is good. You will be hot and sweaty with long sleeves, but staying covered up beats working with a sunburn for the next few days. You will sweat off your sunscreen faster than you think possible. You should also get a few Buff neck gaiters when you can (https://buffusa.com/ ). And a wide brimmed hat ASAP.

You'll want bugspray if you're working near Houston. And a pair of snake gaiters if your company doesn't provide them. We also use powdered lime (from the garden/tractor store -- dump some in an old sock and hit it over your waist/ankles/etc) to prevent chigger bites.

General advice for new CRMers -- try not to spend all your per diem out at the bar. Invest it in yourself by upgrading gear, regional books, professional organization memberships, saving for the off-season, retirement, etc. Chris Webster's Field Archaeologist's Survival Guide ( https://www.amazon.com/Field-Archaeologists-Survival-Guide-Management/dp/1611329280 ) really helped prepare me for my first job and finding the next ones. Other than that, have fun and explore!

Feel free to message me if you have any other questions!

In political science most of the literature on vote choice, at least in contexts with stable party systems, builds out of the loyalties people have to political parties. Partisanship creates what the authors of the seminal work The American Voter call a "perceptual screen" which filters information in ways that reinforce these ties. In other words, people first identify with a political party, then interpret the world in ways that support these views (think confirmation bias and motivated reasoning). This identification, moreover, typically [comes from parents](http://press.princeton.edu/titles/654.html] or other early social experiences.

Vote choice and candidate preference then follows from these loyalties. Loyalties to a political party is symbolically and psychologically meaningfully, much like supporting a sports team or adhering to given religious tenets. That's why you'll see people sticking by candidates regardless of information, among many other political phenomena.

See this in the NYTimes for a quick overview.

Also: opening up space and providing methodological instruments to allow for the academic study of men and masculinities - something that wasn't even on the horizon until early 3rd wavers rolled onto the scene.

If you're a dude looking for what the 3rd wave has done for men, I'd say that's a pretty big check mark right there.

Here are some resources for you to look at, if you're interested:

1. Masculinities, by R.W. Connell
   
2. The Men and the Boys, by R.W. Connell
   
3. Men's Lives, edited by Michael Kimmel and Michael Messner
   
4. Men and Masculinities, a peer-reviewed academic journal devoted entirely to the examination of men and men's lives.
   
5. Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions, by Lisa Wade and Myra Marx Ferree. Features a whole lot of discussion about men and masculinities
   
   This is just the tip of the iceberg of academic research on men and men's lives, and the overwhelming majority of it is a direct result of the revolutions in feminist thought brought forth by what we now think of as 3rd wave feminists.
   
   Now bear in mind that this is all academic stuff, but think about what that means for a moment: each semester, tens of thousands of students from all over the world, are asked to think critically and sociologically (or anthropologically or psychologically, whatever your preferred brand happens to be) about men, men's lives, and the issues facing men and boys today. The textbook I'm currently working on has a whole chapter that focuses on the challenges young men and boys face in North American schools, and the textbook I'm using to teach a sociology of gender course this year devotes about half of its space to examinations of men of all shapes, sizes, orientations, and expressions. That's huge. That's really huge. It's huge because action - and activism - need to be grounded in knowledge, and that's what 3rd wave feminists have helped to provide; knowledge of the unique and often serious challenges facing men and boys today.
   
   So that's what 3rd wave feminism has done for men and boys in academia. I'm sure there are resources around online that can help expand on this.

> Try reading the entire side bar including The Manipulated Man.

I have read that.

>Here, recommend me a book that describes your view, and I'll check it out too.

That's tough. I can recommend you a good primer on pre-2nd wave feminism, 2nd wave feminism, and critical theory. There's a long list of over 200 years of literature and articles that have gotten it to where it is today. Here's a few.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Sex-Simone-Beauvoir/dp/030727778X - Excellent place to start.

It's likely in your local library.

After that...

https://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Politics-Kate-Millett/dp/023117425X

Another place to head to next. Controversial, most people have issue with some of things in here. There is no central authority, it's just lots of ideas and challenging yourself that's at the core of it.

https://www.amazon.com/Justice-Gender-Family-Susan-Moller/dp/0465037038

This is another good book to read on the subject after the first two. It's the first academic application of feminist theory to political theory.

That would set the groundwork.

As far as one that describes my view, not sure if I can do that, but that's cuz most people can't do that. I take ideas from multiple books/articles.

>I'll ask, If Feminism is about equality, why not simply fight for Egalitarianism?

Baggage is one reason. The term itself, egalitarianism, has a historical baggage associated with a pretty screwed up past.

Not only that, but feminism is about the advocacy of women's equality to that of men in areas where they are not equal. This is open to interpretation. If we are talking higher-level structural equality on a large scale, there is still much inequality. If we are talking about perceptions of women and stereotypes, there is much inequality. It's one way to look at it.

Also egalitarianism is not just about gender equality by definition, it deals with broader egalitarian concerns like social status, wealth, etc... It's all about catching flies appropriately. One issue at a time. Feminism is focused on gender inequalities, egalitarianism is focused on the total sum of all inequalities. Vast majority of feminists are egalitarian in regards to gender. They may not be in regards to economic status, they probably believe in free market capitalism for instance.

Also this seems like splitting hairs, what does it matter? I don't see many people rhetorically questioning why you call yourself red pill (haven't seen it, not saying they don't).

Are you caring for your aging parents at your age?

I'm in my 50s caring for my mom in her 80s.

• Respect their stuff and never throw anything away without asking. If you lose their trust, you'll never regain it.
  
  
• Get them into a 55+ apartment. This is not assisted living, it is an apartment where there are others their age and activities they like to do. I means you are not their only friend.
  
  
• You might have to let them fall flat on their face (perhaps literally) before they will let you help them.
  
  
• Make sure they have a password sheet and you know about it.
  
  
• Work with them on a budget. You have to use all your powers of tact and persuasion to do this. Watch some videos on how to convince someone.
  
  
• Read Atul Gawande's Being Mortal.
  
  
• Read any book in your library about aging parents from downsizing, to decluttering to selling their home, etc.
  
  Good luck.

I want to say something, but you seem to have so much already worked out that I'm unsure as to what exactly I should.

First of all, don't worry. All of us here totally have your back. I think you'll be surprised by how many people can relate to your feelings (a double edged sword really. Yay, I belong; Aww, I'm not special ^_^ ). If you want to put a label to yourself (and by all means, feel free not to), I suggest starting somewhere around here. If you'd like to read about other people's theories and experiences then Bornstein and Bergman are right up your alley.

You're already starting to explore, so I don't really know what else to tell you. Just remember that you are doing this for you. You don't have to conform to anyone's notion of trans any more than you have to conform to anyone's notion of female. Do whatever makes you happy.

Okay this is the current sidebar, would be interesting to see what suggestions you got. Remember there is 10240 characters max.

chatrooms

<br />
* [#sots](http://t.me/sotslobby) official lobby sponsored by [#sotscorp](https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/wiki/index/sotscorp-containment-breach)<br />
* the [Channels Channel](https://t.me/sotschannels) lists 50+ more chatrooms<br />
<br />
# what is this subreddit?<br />
<br />
A place for philosophical discussion of what's on most thinking minds.<br />
<br />
We exist in a culture of narrative and media that increasingly, willfully combines agency-robbing fantasy mythos with instantaneous technological dissemination—a self-mutating proteum of semantics: *the spectacle*.<br />
<br />
If confused, please  [stick around](http://www.reddit.com/tb/2ncoxs) or [hover here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/3dm0sp?context=10000 &quot;We live in a culture that uses media to tell us how to live. Our culture purposefully creates fantasies that rob us of our freedom, and this is more effective with technology like the internet. This phenomenon is a self modifying cluster of symbols and signs that constantly change their meaning.<br />
--: Unpacked By /u/Nethodsod&quot;). Post [questions](https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/wiki/index/what-is-this-subreddit-about), read or watch some of the things below, and soak in the language here.<br />
<br />
# subreddit projects:<br />
<br />
* protecting against invasion by [#sotscorp](https://www.reddit.com/r/sorceryofthespectacle/wiki/index/sotscorp-containment-breach)<br />
<br />
# reading list:<br />
<br />
* [The Ignorant Schoolmaster](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=106E9A4CF1C0BF64312DD7B5B4F1EA2D)  <br />
Jacques Ranciere<br />
* [Sorcery](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=df364cd139be77f099ae85652b955dfc)  <br />
J. Finley Hurley<br />
* [Society of the Spectacle](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/search.php?req=society+of+the+spectacle&amp;amp;lg_topic=libgen&amp;amp;open=0&amp;amp;view=simple&amp;amp;phrase=1&amp;amp;column=def)  <br />
Guy DeBord<br />
* [Stolen Lightning: The Social Theory of Magic](http://www.amazon.com/Stolen-Lightning-Social-Theory-Magic/dp/0394716345/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&amp;amp;ie=UTF8&amp;amp;qid=1402366814&amp;amp;sr=1-1&amp;amp;keywords=stolen+lightning+social+theory+of+magic)  <br />
Daniel O'Keefe<br />
* [The Corruption of Reality: A Unified Theory of Religion, Hypnosis, and Psychopathology](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=9B05621E2E3208EBF53FB85ECF2AB36D)  <br />
John Schumaker<br />
* [What is Philosophy?](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=F257DE36F685B242FCD7CD378AB5C7E3), [Anti-Oedipus](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=29EC703BDF9FF100EE6C505FA8988FBC), and [A Thousand Plateaus](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=7597A0CF7F6E41D783C7D59B68F7E852)  <br />
Deleuze &amp;amp; Guattari ([intro](https://www.quora.com/What-did-Deleuze-mean-by-becoming-molecular))<br />
* [Cyclonopedia](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=B92017F71597CF28B7E41C0897BFEF33)  <br />
Reza Negarestani<br />
* [Meltdown](http://ccru.net/swarm1/1_melt.htm)  (in [Fanged Noumena](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=63C72B29861211D98E749AAE2BE4DC05))  <br />
Nick Land<br />
* [Apocalyptic AI](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=5BAD440941C87AF28B73961ADD9E8FA2)  <br />
Robert Geraci<br />
* [Plato's Cosmology: The Timaeus of Plato](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=30CF1D300AE240B63BE04A46C75D5D47)  <br />
Francis Cornford<br />
* **[SSOTBME Revised - An Essay on Magic](http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=AD5ADBE32109CA3347A7350B439C1D9A)**  <br />
Ramsey Dukes<br />
* **[Figuring Out Ineffable Education]<br />
(http://www.othereducation.org/index.php/OE/article/view/29)**  <br />
Lynn Fendler<br />
* [The Zen TV Experiment](http://www.spack.org/words/zentv.html)<br />
* [I Want to Believe](http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/i-want-to-believe/) ([thread](http://www.reddit.com/tb/2wfbe1))  <br />
Jarrod Shanahan<br />
* [TV Tropes](http://tvtropes.org) (warning: memetic hazard)  <br />
<br />
More in the [reading list](http://reddit.com/1vfldq) and [reviews](http://reddit.com/26iyhy) threads.<br />
<br />
Please [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fsorceryofthespectacle) about broken links!<br />
<br />
# related subreddits:<br />
<br />
Which is true or false? No answer will be given. Be skeptical of their narratives, including yours.<br />
<br />
* **[sotsblend multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/u/raisondecalcul/m/sotsblend)**<br />
* /r/Anarcho_Capitalism<br />
* /r/BadPhilosophy<br />
* /r/Buddhism<br />
* /r/CogSec/<br />
* /r/Conspiracy<br />
* /r/CriticalActivism<br />
* /r/CriticalTheory<br />
* /r/DarkEnlightenment<br />
* /r/DarkFuturology<br />
* /r/DimensionalJumping<br />
* /r/Socialism_101/<br />
* /r/CapitalismVSocialism/<br />
* /r/Holofractal<br />
* **/r/LateStageCapitalism**<br />
* /r/LibraryofBabel <br />
* /r/Mysticism<br />
* /r/Nonviolence<br />
* /r/Occult<br />
* /r/occultconspiracy<br />
* **/r/Oneirosophy**<br />
* /r/ProcessRelational<br />
* /r/Psychonaut<br />
* /r/RadicalChristianity<br />
* **/r/Reading1000Plateaus**<br />
* **/r/Readingerosandmagic**<br />
* /r/ShrugLifeSyndicate<br />
* /r/ScientismToday<br />
* /r/sos<br />
* **/r/SotSExperimentalTVtm**<br />
* **/r/SotSmeme**<br />
* /r/SpeculativeRealism<br />
* /r/TheLastPsychiatrist<br />
* /r/Theopoetics<br />
* /r/theoryofpropaganda<br />
* /r/TheTranslucentSociety<br />
* /r/TimeTravelPragmatism<br />
* /r/ToroidalMetaphysics<br />
* /r/TheRedPill<br />
* /r/The_Donald<br />
* **/r/VXJunkies**<br />
* /r/wizardglass/<br />
<br />
(**Bold** means recently updated or highlighted.)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Thanks /u/papersheepdog for improving the [cat.](http://reddit.com/2qm22l)

> And by the way, talking about their IQ is just proving a point about yourself.

That is? fact is the average intelligence is much less in the countries most of them originate from... They're in line or lower than most of our lower-class, and they're usually not a benefit to our country either.

We have a huge Moroccan population that has a genetic disadvantage, due to inbreeding mostly... They're close to what we call mentally challenged, but because there are so many of them we treat them like they're like the average person.

Just google a bit or read this

> They DON'T want to be treated like children,

Not saying they do, but they are like children... Like you said you need to demand a lot from them, but that's not in line with their expectations or will. And because they're not children this might prove hard to implement.

one question: you leave the kids in the car with engine running?

and. awesome. those are great books and good for you overall. don't let her twist you in "The manipulated Man" ( https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178)

don't punish the kids though, they may like your routine.

get them ready and skip the rest of the "nice guy" stuff.

> Getting paid to find a certain conclusion isn't a conflict of interest?

So AEI and Free Press both told Charles Murray to find certain things and then they published it and you think he doesn't believe these things? What about his co author? Are you accusing Harvard of pushing for Hernstein to fabricate the disparity of IQs between the races? This claim is absolutely bizarre.

You realize that the difference in IQs among the races isn't actually a good thing for libertarians or conservatives? It's much harder to have an ideology that says pull yourself up by your bootstraps, when different races are either significantly less or more intelligent than each other. It makes it even worse if the difference is genetic, since that would be very hard to solve, granted the bell curve doesn't make the claim that the difference between the races is all genetic. So we are still not sure what is causing the difference, but we will get closer to the answers as we progress in our abilities to collect better data.

>Can you tell me how you're defining conflict of interest?

I would say when someone is going to benefit by making the wrong decision/choice about something. You haven't even come close to showing a conflict of interests with the authors of the Bell Curve. I think you should if you want to pursue this accusation any farther. I'd like some hard evidence that you have that shows Murray was explicitly set to benefit for putting the IQ and race stuff in his book. It seems to me it's made him worse off by making him a pariah to many and being slandered left and right.

>It's not a smear, that's literally what a conflict of interest.

I don't think you know what a conflict of interest is. It's not a conflict of interest if I work for an evolution think tank and write a book about evolution. Evolution is true, there is no conflict.

>You mean the research funded by the Pioneer Fund?

So if you disagree with someone who funded research you should refuse to use it? Should we have burned all the scientific and medical research done by the Nazis or should we have used it?


He literally published a book about the issue in 1973. You would have known about that if you went down to his published works. I guess I should challenge you about your baseless claim about Herrnstein. Where did you find that information about him? He clearly had been looking at the subject for at least two decades before the publishing of the Bell Curve.

Ars Moriendi, the art of dying, I feel, is often a lost concept in modern society.

Dying with dignity is an oft shunned topic of discussion, but when approached with a level headed understanding, can save tons of suffering for the dying, and even more than that, can save a lot of depression associated with people caring for the dying and their regrets about not making decisions that comforted the dying in their final days, weeks, months, or years.

It's a hard conversation for even doctors to have in industrialized nations, because the expectation is that everyone is just one medical miracle away from recovering some life they used to have, but the reality, in many cases, is that way of life may already be gone.

Expecting that way of life to come back and crazy interventions that may make the patient worse are something people often pursue towards the end, instead of accepting what they are facing, and living out the best life they can while they still have time.

If you are still reading this here, I would highly recommend the book Being Mortal by Atul Gawande as it has given me an unparalleled understanding of the expectations of aging, mortality, and dying, that I could never express as eloquently

Jordan B. Peterson is very careful about the way he speaks (writes) and the words he use. The current translation of 12 Rules for Life in germany hurts his reputation and distorts his message. And as someone who has consumed hours and hours of his wisdom, I feel obliged to speak up against it.

Please support and share. Make him aware, we need a german reprint, with a translation that does justice to the original. Thank you!

@Update: I think a more literal translation of the german version of rule 12 would be: "If a cat runs across your way, stroke/pet it."

@Update: Since some people have argued that "unsympathetic" isn't a good translation of "unsympathisch" (see rule 5) I just wanted to note, that I've tried my best to be as true to the words as possible and therefore decided to go with unsympathetic, but some might prefer "unlikeable" or "disagreeable". Plus I can't simply alter the image.

@Update: Revised image/translation based upon feedback

/u/Hermel: "Good news everyone, a revised translation will be available soon: https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Life-chaotischen-Aktualisierte-Neuausgabe-ebook/dp/B07SGM97WX"

/u/dll22: "I teach translation at a university in China and work for a translation company. Hope these points are informative. (...)"

Well there are all sorts of tribes that are matrilineal and matrilocal and even to degrees matriarchal. But its kinda a false dichotomy to say that ANY group is fully patriarchal or fully matriarchal. In almost every culture there is a split of power along different lines.

In matrilineal cultures there tends to be a split that women control basically the family, but men act on the behalf outside the home. So women control the home, the tribal activities. But men do the trading (and have control over that), men do the fighting (and have control over that.

A good example would be of the Mosuo. There is a lot of hype in feminist circles about them being Matriarchal but they kinda are missing the nuance for political gain. They are probably the most matriarchal culture out there. This is a pretty good ethnography on them, but I would also suggest reading This. It shows as more economic contact is made the there has been the culture is changing, so they aren't exactly the same as the ethnography put them.

It comes down to how the power is allocated really. I mean if you are in a small tribe where basically home life is the only political life and the mother controls the home then yeah its going to seem matriarchal. But even if that were the same model except most of the activity is outside the home and the men controlled that it is going to seem more patriarchal.

Here is a list of what is typically seen as matrilineal and matrilocal societies. As you will see they are incredibly diverse and cross the world. But matriarchy/patriarchy is something a bit harder to put your fingers on.

> Feminism, at least on here, seems to completely ignore those factors and jump straight for 'social construct' with no evidence, no reasoning, and no discussion.

This is a false assertion on your part. There is a lot of very powerful evidence that gender is in fact the product of social forces and has very little to do with biology. This evidence emerges from decades of intensive research by sociologists, anthropologists, psychologists and even biologists - who will often point out that while humans are a sexually dimorphic species, the extent of that dimorphism is fairly small.

One of the reasons you might not be seeing this evidence in discussions of gender online is because, frankly, having to stop a discussion to provide links to this exhaustive mountain of evidence every time someone with little knowledge of the material demands to see it is frustrating and tiresome. There are hundreds - thousands - of introductory textbooks from sociology, anthropology, gender studies, and psychology that talk about the social construction of gender; if you want to see the evidence, then look there. Most feminists accept the academic consensus that gender is primarily the product of culture, and because that consensus is grounded in the best possible empirical research, you should accept it too.

Or don't. I'm not your boss. But if you don't accept it, then you should accept that in rejecting the social construction of gender, you're also rejecting the preponderance of evidence, which might not be the best place to plant your flag.

>I think saying it's 100% socially constructed is probably wrong too...

Good thing that's not what most people are saying. Bodies exist. They are the things onto which we inscribe our cultural values. But they are also incredibly malleable and so they are shaped and reshaped by the dictates of culture.

Why do children raised in poverty have poorer health outcomes than those raised in middle class or rich environments? Because poverty correlates with poorer diets, fewer calories consumed per day, and a lack of regular access to gyms or after-school fitness programs. Poor bodies are shaped in different ways than rich bodies because of culture. I mean, hell, the foundation of epidemiology is the recognition that cultural forces have enormous impact on bodies.

Why are men bigger and stronger than women? Biology? Perhaps, but we also cannot overlook the fact that in our society - and in many others - men are expected to consume an average of 300-400 additional calories per day than women. Is this because men are "naturally" bigger and stronger than women, or are men bigger and stronger than women because they've historically had access to higher calorie diets (which we know result in bigger, stronger people)? Do men have more muscle mass because testosterone, or do they have more muscle mass because they are incentivized to be more muscled than women - who are treated worse if their own muscle mass begins to impact their perceived femininity? Men are supposed to be big and strong; women are supposed to be petite and "trim" or "fit but not overly muscled". Men know this and women know this, and our recognition of these normative standards will pressure us to sculpt our bodies in different ways.

What I'm saying is that the cliches of "men are strong because biology, men like blue because culture" is reductionist to the point of being useless. The reality is far, far more complicated than this, but in the end, in light of decades of research into the question of nature v. nurture, the broad consensus is "a little bit of biology, and a whole boatload of culture".

Lol I don't have to engage every internet stranger asshole who condescends to me. I'd never get work done. The fact you're quoting the UN at me is concerning though. I know they position themselves as a neutral global mediator, but in practice they function to advance the interests of powerful capitalist countries and their policies. Fuck the United Nations. You have to be a lot more critical of the info coming out of Rojava. It's a warzone, they are communists, and almost every global power has an interest in spinning any news on the conflict. Here's an article that shows an example of the disinfo I'm talking about.

In addition, your understanding of the political power structure is highly reductive. This book is a good place to start (used to be a free version to pirate but I can't find it now). The governing system there is complex and the dynamics are fluid. It's also complicated by an ongoing wartime situation. Democratic Confederalism is a theoretical system being implemented for the first time, and they acknowledge the struggle of transitioning from traditional culture to a progressive one under these conditions. That doesn't mean I'm/they're wrong, it certainly doesn't mean you're right.

Anyway cut that "drink the kool aid / i'm here to teach you something" attitude. There's clearly so much on this situation you don't know, and you're so up your own ass that you thought UN and Wikipedia made you look smart. And then telling me I'm whacking off to party rhetoric when you're endorsing info from the mouthpiece of our global ruling class. Thoughtless.

Thank you for linking this. The parent comment to yours was at the top of this thread when I started reading the comments, so your link to the transcript of the NPR interview with Daryl Davis was the first information about him that I had ever consumed. What a story! My jaw dropped a couple times, I said "Wow," out loud at least three times, and I almost cried at one point.

This man's story deserves to be heard around the world. It makes me want to be a better person, and attempt to be even a little bit as brave and respectful of other human beings whose viewpoints clash with mine, as this man is. I'm definitely going to check out his book, "Klan-Destine Relationships," and the Netflix documentary that was linked in the parent comment.

*Edit: Well, I guess I won't be reading "Klan-Destine Relationships" any time soon, if the cheapest version (paperback, used) is $99!

>I am so fucking hungover dude and now I gotta read your wall of text bullshit at fucking 2 in the morning. Whiny cunt.

Nice start, 15 lines ain't a wall, only for you hominoidea.

>Ok, assuming your assertion is accurate and backed up (Race Realism tires me greatly),why does that literally matter for anything? At all?

It matters about virtually everything, as for wealth/education levels to criminality/birth out of wedlock, intelligence is a great predictor, which seems you don't have much. For pisa and timss for example the correlation is around 0.8.

>STUDIES SAY SO BUT I AIN'T GONNA LINK SHIT.

Since you can't search for shit, here goes:

Heritability IQ

Heritability IQ Wiki

Bell Curve

IQ and Global Inequality

A Study of Jewish Intelligence and Achievement

More about Jews

Blacks commit more violent crimes and poverty isn't correlated:

Truth about crime

A little bit of Harris

>'THESE ANIMALS ARE GONNA BREED AND WE GOTTA LEAVE THEM IN FILTH' That is what you said, dude. In fact, I would respect you more if you just came out and said it, or retracted your prior statement, not become a whiny cunt when someone treats you at the same level as your (repugnant) statements.

First world people aren't responsible for the chaos and irresponsibility by african adults. Africa had 200 million people at the start of 1900, now it's 1.216 billion and it's still sky rocketing. They need to become self-sustainable without european aid.

>That statement pisses me off, I've seen it kicked around ad nauseum, as if when people say that 'all men are born equal', they're like 'WELL ASCHTUALLY, WE ARE BIOLOGICALLY DIFFERENTTT'. No fuckwad, that's not what such a sentiment means. It means that, regardless, everybody should be treated with a baseline of respect and dignity. No more, no less.

Never said people needed to lose their natural rights, aid isn't a natural right.

>GUESS FUCKING WHY? IT AIN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE 'THE SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL RACE', IT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE FIRST WORLD CIVILIZATIONS WHO DON'T SHIT IN A TROUGH. That is why people get frustrated with you as an individual, because you're dense. Abjectly dense.

You need a smart population to maintain good institutions and have professions, which requires higher cognitive abilities.

>Refer to the above. But regardless, keeping them in poor conditions won't stop any suffering. I abjectly fail to see your amazing solution to this issue. 'IF WE KEEP THEM IN POVERTY, THEY'LL JUST DIE OUT OR SOMETHING'. Nope, they'll just continued to be impoverished and continue to have more dying kids. Good job.

Lack in food supply would force african parents to considerate their number of children and their capability to feed them, like any adult needs. Also, there is no duty to send aid and most of the aid is stolen by the african elite.

>Stop spreading bullshit. Abject bullshit.

The demographics of Africa only exploded because of european technology and aid, if that stabilises is another story, regardles, there is no duty to give aid.

>GUESS FUCKING WHY? IT AIN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE 'THE SUPERIOR INTELLECTUAL RACE', IT'S BECAUSE THOSE ARE FIRST WORLD CIVILIZATIONS WHO DON'T SHIT IN A TROUGH. That is why people get frustrated with you as an individual, because you're dense. Abjectly dense.

They have higher intelligence and intelligent people tend to have less children and invest more on them.

>I dislike your assertion that, because I share an ideology, we are somehow comparable. Or I should have 'x, y and z' beliefs. Eat a dick.

Because antinatalists rely on human nature and evolution to support their claims, but there will be always people like you in any political spectrum.


Cheers.








>

In a wide-ranging life, Hentoff made some vital contributions to Jazz. Some of the things I've personally found to be of great worth:

Co-author with Nat Shapiro of Hear Me Talkin' To Ya, an invaluable oral history of Jazz musicians.

As A&R Director of Candid Records, he was responsible for many great records, including:

Charles Mingus Presents Charles Mingus

Mingus

Cecil Taylor's The World Of..., Air, Cell Walk For Celeste, Jumpin' Punkins, and New York R&B

and many others...

• The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces -- you might also check out the documentary he did too.
  
• Design for Ecological Democracy has some very relevent chapters, on creating strong, welcoming community centres that encourage healthy socialization and investment.

I love unused vintage ones! They're my favorite. I also buy boxes of postcards from Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-National-Parks-Softcover-Anniversary/dp/0996777717/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1503684567&sr=8-3&keywords=national+park+postcards these have been a hit with people on Postcrossing! Whenever I'm out and about and see postcards, I always buy them if they aren't tourist themed, even if they seem random. I also find someone who wants the random sheep/ocean/magazine/etc. themed cards I buy :)

Heh. Probably get downboated for this, but a friend of mine in Japan told me once, "Just by virtue of being a gaijin in Japan that speaks Japanese, you'll be able to qualify for a higher quality of girl than you could get back in the 'states." I still think it's pretty much true due to the tendency of Japanese women romanticize the West.

Good news everyone, a revised translation will be available soon:
https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Life-chaotischen-Aktualisierte-Neuausgabe-ebook/dp/B07SGM97WX

Also, I’m a native German speaker and OPs translation from German back to English makes the translation look worse than it is. To pick a random example, “sinnvoll” is the correct translation of “meaningful”. But if I was a German Jordan Peterson, I would have probably formulated rule 7 as “Strebe nach Sinn (und nicht nach Glück)”, which departs from the original meaning, but is much more catchy. Of course, translating a text is always a trade-off between staying true to the original meaning and finding something that sounds good.

Hear Me Talkin to Ya is a great way to get into the history of Jazz. You feel like you are there.

Synopsis:

"A work of considerable substance." — The New Yorker. In this marvelous oral history, the words of such legends as Louis Armstrong, Fats Waller, Jelly Roll Morton, Duke Ellington, and Billy Holiday trace the birth, growth, and changes in jazz over the years. Includes excerpts from hundreds of personal interviews, letters, tapes, and articles.

"Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Conspiracist Underground" by Jonathan Kay is pretty great. It tries to understand conspiracy theorists' motivations and reasons for thinking the way they do in a non-mocking way, as many of them (9/11 truthers in particular) are actually pretty intelligent and patriotic, wishing for the rule of law to prevail over whoever they believe really did 9/11.

http://www.amazon.com/Among-Truthers-Cognitive-Underworld-American/dp/0062004816

Also: "The Great Derangement: War, Politics, and Religion at the Twilight of the American Empire" by Matt Taibbi has a section about his time immersed in the 9/11 truther movement, followed by a pretty biting and hilarious analysis of the fundamental logical failures that underpin all 9/11 conspiracy thinking.

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Great-Derangement-Terrifying-Politics/dp/0385520344

There's a great book you might enjoy:

• Amazon: Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground
  
  
• NYT Review: Inside the World of Conspiracy Theorists
  
  
• Bloggingheads: A great one hour interview of the author.
  
  The author, Jonathan Kay, is the editor of Canada's The National Post newspaper.

I love books about the national parks. This is a great travel guide for them. Here are some more coffee table type books: one, two.

https://www.amazon.com/Society-without-Fathers-Husbands-China/dp/1890951137

I recommend this anthropology book for anyone interested in this topic. In Na society, unclehood is considered more important than fatherhood. It's very different and interesting

A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory by Nikki Sullivan is pretty decent

I think How to Do Things With Words by JL Austin is a fun read. It's really a lingusitics book, but very relevant, because it quite clearly outlines the topic of performativity, which is crucial to understanding queer theory.

Margaret Mead Made Me Gay by Esther Newton is another good sort of intro. Its kind of a memoir of how her critical theory developed and as you read along you see what ideas are woven in, how they intersected with politics and history and social change at the time.

Is this the kind of stuff you meant? I have more up my sleeve if you want it.

Looks like an interesting read, luckily it is only $300 on amazon.

I'm not going to argue with you, because it's obvious your entire understanding of this is based around wikipedia, and googling "gotcha" responses, when this is a lot more complicated and research has evolved since then.

Subsequent studies have been done that have corrected for the data. I suggest you look into the research by Richard Hornstein and the late JP Rushton, who along with Richard Lynn, has corrected many of the factors and controls that may have led to such issues.

The results aren't much different.. Buy the book (or pirate it if you're really that ideological about this) and get back to me. I look forward to having a meaningful discussion with you once you're educated about the topic.

>I know you want to say that non-white

Funny, wasn't aware that Japan, Singapore, etc. were White nations.

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but the narration starts with a handful of assumptions that they later find to be untrue. "Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation" kind of stuff. While I'm not in love with the architecture, I think the study makes perfect sense. Some of the conclusions made in the related book had some influence in the NYC Dept. of City Planning.

/unjerk

https://www.amazon.com/Women-Verge-Japanese-Asia-Pacific-Politics/dp/082232816X/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Here is a study on a collection of anecdotes/surveys given by Japanese women who are into westerners, basically they viewed those men as a liberation from oppressive corporate and family structures. I only have the chance to read reviews from other scholars, and it's like what you said, some find certain aspects of life at home to be better.

I hope you don't mind me simply copy pasting my previous answer.

It's a cultural theory which, for many people (myself not included) , is closely tied to the concepts of post-scructuralism. I guess the Wikipedia article would be a good start? I personally got into the topic through Nikki Sullivan's book.

There's 59 Illustrated National Parks: 100th Anniversary . It has a two page spread of every national park including the newest, Pinnacles, including one large page of history and information, and the illustrated postcard type minimalist advertisements for the park that have been popular the last few years. It was also made specifically and has information about the NPS 100th anniversary this year. They are being sold in most National Park shops, I got mine at Death Valley during their anniversary celebrations last month. It would be a cool, and certainly one of a kind gift!

I recently read the book "Being Mortal", and I highly recommend it. It's a look at the very flawed way in which we view dying, medical care, and other end of life concerns. It was a very good read.

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Mortal-Illness-Medicine-Matters/dp/1250081246

This book may be of help, it is quite an interesting read

> Esther Vilar in "The Manipulated Man"

That book is almost 180 bucks on Amazon. I have it on my list, but I just can't see spending that kind of money for a book at the moment.

That's how important and controlled that book is in today's world. When I saw that price and how restricted/hard to get it was, that immediately setoff some massive Red Alerts.

It's easier for me to get Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf than it is a copy of that book.

Let that sink in.

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482345217&sr=8-1&keywords=Esther+Vilar+in+%22The+Manipulated+Man%22

Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions is a college textbook but it's chapters on men and masculinity are very informative and easy to understand.

Check out Susan Moller Okin's Justice, Gender, and the Family for one of the most prominent feminist critiques of Rawls. Also, a quick Google search yielded this paper, which you may find interesting.

Books:

How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken by Alex Marshall

A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Livable Cities by Donald L. Elliott

Anything by Leon Krier (Architecture: Choice or Fate being my favorite) or William H. Whyte (The Social Life Of Small Urban Spaces being my favorite)


Essays:

Jane Jacobs and the The Death and Life of American Planning by Thomas J. Campanella

Toward and Urban Design Manifesto by Allen Jacobs and Donald Appleyard.

>the manipulated man

It looks very interesting:

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

I like the top review.

Thanks for the recommendation!

Link to Amazon for others:

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178/ref=sr_1_fkmrnull_1?keywords=%22the+manipulated+man%22+from+esther+vilar&qid=1557272009&s=gateway&sr=8-1-fkmrnull

> When I wrote a book about conspiracy theories a few years back, I found there is a rich lore of anti-Baconian sentiment among many radical thinkers.

[This is a fascinating read.] (http://www.amazon.com/Among-Truthers-Americas-Conspiracist-Underground/dp/0062004816)

I did, and there are studies to prove it. Take the book IQ and Global Inequality. Their study noticed a clear difference in adopted kids. Kids from African countries who got adopted by white American families had an IQ similar to that of the average in their country of origin. On the other hand, Korean kids (Mongoloids) score higher. A clear signal that the differences have a genetic basis.

I did not know about this German study and I'm not 100% sure a difference does indeed exist, but it's not outlandish to think so. I do, at the very least, consider it.

There you go, you're welcome!

The Na people of China are the only group I've read about that don't practice marriage.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1890951137?pc_redir=1398108671&robot_redir=1

There are, however, places in which marriage practices bear little if any resemblance to what you might think of as marriage.

The Nandi for example have a really interesting tradition of female husbands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nandi_people

+munnimi:

A review of your book on Amazon warns that you may have been taken advantage of by the Klan members, as in, your story may cast them as "not that bad after all", and that you supported their claim of them being victims of "reverse racism". The full review can be seen through that Amazon link. What is your view of these criticisms, and what would you say are the aims of your work with the Klan?

Edit: This is the review I'm referring to: https://www.amazon.com/Klan-Destine-Relationships-Black-Mans-Odyssey/dp/0882822691#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1505746878290

E2: link may not work, am on mobile. Referring to the Kirkus Reviews "Description".

A review of your book on Amazon warns that you may have been taken advantage of by the Klan members, as in, your story may cast them as "not that bad after all", and that you supported their claim of them being victims of "reverse racism". The full review can be seen through that Amazon link. What is your view of these criticisms, and what would you say are the aims of your work with the Klan?

Edit: This is the review I'm referring to: https://www.amazon.com/Klan-Destine-Relationships-Black-Mans-Odyssey/dp/0882822691#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1505746878290

E2: link may not work, am on mobile. Referring to the Kirkus Reviews "Description".

I've always liked Nat Hentoff

Finally, someone who knows what I'm taking about and I can converse with about this topic!

Usually I just get people who bash me for being a feminist or people who can't comprehend that patriarchy is oppressive.


>If I disagree with a woman's choice to wear a burka or veil, then I am engaging in an act of paternalism by telling her that from my perspective she is being oppressed and that there is something wrong with her for not seeing that.

Bingo, that's the crux of the problem. It is so difficult to parse out what is someone's choice and what is an environmental influence. There is also a difficulty with talking about an oppressive system without somehow maligning the folks who seemingly choose to be oppressed by it.

My view is a very radical and liberal one that most people would not find appealing. It's absolute egalitarianism in the sense that I would like to see society reach a point where there are no gender roles. It's an ideal that would take many years to achieve, but that's what I take to be a better society. Gender roles (no matter how they are set up) are inherently sexist, and I would like to see them go.

I mean, I could say I became an atheist out of free choice, but I can easily trace the events over several years that led me onto the path I am now.

Was I first coerced by my environment to be muslim and then coerced by a new environment to become an atheist.

I don't know how interested you are in reading academic feminism, but if you ever want more info on what I'm trying to say, try Justice, Gender, and Family by Susan Okin.

Women on the Verge: Japanese Women, Western Dreams by Karen Kelsky, Duke Univ. Press

I wish I had read this years ago

>Oh so you’re sexist against your own gender? Do you just say this stuff to make yourself look better than most women?

@ u/roccoseinfeld - May I recommend a book to you?

It's called: "THE MANIPULATED MAN"

It's author is: ESTHER Vilar

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

When you're done with those, may I recommend Being Mortal

One. The Drama of a Gifted Child by Alice Miller

Two. Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates

Three. The Ethics of Ambiguity by Simone De Beauvoir

Four. The Plague by Albert Camus

Five. Daring Greatly by Brene Brown

Six. Being Mortal by Atul Gawande

Seven. The Atheist Muslim by Ali Rizvi

Eight. A World of Three Zeros by Muhammad Yunus

edit: numbers didn’t show

This book is decent It also has a chapter on Ayn Rand objectivism as a cult.

Also see another book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct/dp/1250008808/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=128C3144EKDPV7SQPYRY


Among the Truthers is also not bad.

Sex

The Way of Men – Jack Donovan***
Sperm Wars – Robin Baker
Sex at Dawn – Christopher Ryan
Why Men Rule – Steven Goldberg
The Manipulated Man – Esther Vilar
Is There Anything Good About Men? – Roy Baumeister
Demonic Males – Dale Peterson
The Essential Difference – Simon Baron-Cohen
The Mating Mind – Geoffrey Miller
The Red Queen – Matt Ridley

****

Government

Mau-mauing the Flak Catchers – Tom Wolfe
Public Choice: An Introduction – Iain McLean
On Government Employment – Foseti (blog post)
Yes, Minister – TV Show

****

​

>those shipments aren't anything new

if you can find me an example of the US shipping Armored vehicles and Howitzers to the SDF prior to 2017, I'll concede the point.

>Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda has always been an insurgency. ISIS is an unrecognized state. they'll go underground, like the Taliban has gone underground, but we will have total victory over them in the field very shortly, in Iraq and Syria. If you want to move the goalposts from the defeat of ISIS to eliminating absolutely all resistence from Islamic Extremism, then I wont argue with you. Victory in that context will only come from empowering broad coalitions of different ethnicities and creeds, and embracing alternative political and power structures, like the work being undertaken in Rojava, and other parts of Syria and Turkey. for reading, check out Revolution in Rojava

This is a good book about conspiracy theorists, I recommend it: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0062004816

I was under the impression the manipulated man was the sidebar article. Is this the book you recommend?

Try this; https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/745489624?utm_medium=api&utm_source=custom_widget

Then this; https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

Message me if you want more!

You would like "The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar. She basically blasts women for being infantile jerks who trade access to their vagina for material support.

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

Everybody should read Atul Gawande's Being Mortal.

wenn du es genau wissen willst empfehle ich diese beiden hier

https://www.amazon.com/IQ-Wealth-Nations-Richard-Lynn/dp/027597510X

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244

the book mentioned Klan Destine Relaitonships in the article is selling for as high as $461.00 in the used section of Amazon

https://www.amazon.de/Rules-Life-chaotischen-Aktualisierte-Neuausgabe-ebook/dp/B07SGM97WX

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

Voit ihan sen itse kirjankin lukea:

https://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244

There have been black members and supporters of the kkk. Literally anything is possible if you're stupid enough.

Here's a book an out a black man who "befriended" kkk members for interviews sake.
https://www.amazon.com/Klan-Destine-Relationships-Black-Mans-Odyssey/dp/0882822691#featureBulletsAndDetailBullets_secondary_view_div_1503244614945

> passing

One re-phrasing of this that I really liked(from a chapter of this book that also discusses why 'passing' isn't a great term, for the curious) was whether someone is read as their gender.

It moves the onus of responsibility from the transperson being the one who has to pass to other people being the ones who should read them correctly. It also removes the gross undertones that transpeople are somehow in disguise and 'passing' is just their disguise working.

Of course in a perfect world we wouldn't need termonology around it at all, but this isn't that world (yet) and people need some way to talk about their experiences.

>but not with multiple different books.

You're out of luck then, your only hope at getting a solid basic understanding is reading at the bare minimum a few. I'd suggest reading one focusing on the Islamic State/AQI, one focusing on the Kurdish situation including Turkey and the PKK, one on the civil war (rebels vs regime), and one about the conflict in general.

Couple of recommendations

The Battle for Syria: International Rivalry in the New Middle East

Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in the Syrian Kurdistan

The Syrian Jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the Evolution of an Insurgency

The Manipulated Man

>Interesting point of view. I would say not having the right to vote and being considered “property” is oppression, but I can see why you would think otherwise.

Then men have just as much right to complain too, since most men in the west couldn't vote until the mid-19th century at the earliest, especially in the UK, where we couldn't vote until 1918, just a decade before most women could. Also, women might have been considered property but least society doesn't still treat you like a disposable utility. There was never much equality in the world, until recently. In fact, there still isn't.

>I don’t agree “protection” is the correct description.

It was in those days.

>It seems you don’t have a full understanding of why the feminist movement began in the 19th century, because there genuinely were unequal rights and women were seen as lesser than a man

When did I say they didn't have less rights? All I said was the movement was not entirely pure from the start. True equality was never their final goal.

>legally women are equals, which is what the movement achieved

And much more than that, of course.

>I would be happy to delve deeper into your perspective of the topic if you are willing to share links or names of texts.

This and this are good places to start. I also encourage you to read this to learn more about how women have more or less manipulated society to their liking and how men (especially those in power) will often betray their own gender to bow to the demands of women. I think you'll find these books very interesting and eye-opening.

>Also, I’m not sure what you mean by “today’s morals” because morals are timeless. There are different philosophies, so of course you may disagree.

What is considered "right and wrong" throughout history changes is what I'm saying. You can't apply our standards to the past. I'm sure people in the future will look back in horror at things we don't even consider to be bad today.

No problem, man.

If you don’t know about what’s going on in Rojava, I understand how you wouldn’t see the significance of the fight in Rojava.

It’s not just about some individuals fighting for their lives. It’s about a progressive model for how to organize society along anarchist thinking, living equally and ecologically. And out of all the places in the world, this begins in war-torn Syria!

I recommend you do your own research. But here’s a Rolling Stone article about the the western anarchists who joined the fight , which explains a bit of the context. I recall it was an easy read.

If you’re looking for a more academic account and
a more thorough analysis from a societal perspective, I can recommend Revolution in Rojava: Democratic Autonomy and Women's Liberation in Syrian Kurdistan.

Edit: Wanted to add that these people are fighting an important fight, probably the most important fight in the world right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Inequality-Richard-Lynn-Vanhanen/dp/1593680244

Personal Bias: Anger at denial of truth.

Verhagen (1956) gave Raven’s Progressive Matrices (a non-verbal, multiple-choice test of abstract reasoning) to 67 adults, and obtained a mean IQ of 64.

Laroche (1959) gave the RPM to 222 children, ages 10–15; mean IQ, 68.

Boivin and Giordani (1993) gave the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (designed to be culturally unbiased) to 47 children, age 8; mean IQ, 62.

Boivin et al. (1995) gave the K-ABC to 95 children, ages 7–12; mean IQ, 68.

Giordani et al. (1996) gave the K-ABC to 130 children, ages 7–9; mean IQ, 65.

Congolese IQ remains the same whether they are under Colonial Rule or not.

As for socioeconomic background, the poorest whites still do better than the richest blacks on the SAT. Yes, tell me all about how a standardized test for all somehow disadvantages all blacks who score low, I dare you to bring that SJW bullshit here.

Also, comparing a toxin to an economic background makes a false equivalency.

Is it really that hard to believe we evolved in different scenarios thus only got what we needed to survive? People in most tropical paradises don't have much of a high IQ because they didn't need to. Climb a tree to get fruit and you'll stay alive, that will be there all year round. People who live in northern euro and cold places needed to find out when winter is coming and going, farming for resources, preservation of resources, harder survival, harsher elements, means of travel, etc.

As for Women who support or at least understand MGTOW I'd assume the two would be

Esther Vilar of The Manipulated man : https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178


and Dr. Helen Smith Of Men on Strike : https://www.amazon.com/Men-Strike-Boycotting-Marriage-Fatherhood/dp/1594037620


It's going to be harder to find sources that rationally argue against MGTOW because the typical arguments against MGTOW tend to attack mens sexuality , sexual abilities( incel / virgin ) , or tend to call men who do not subscribe to traditional male gender roles cowards and similar emasculating claims to evoke an emotional response .

The most common arguments against MGTOW are probably going to be listed as arguments in support of men marrying .

DON'T WORRY CITIZENS!

Alice Miller, "The Drama of the Gifted Child"
> WAHHHHH! BEING SMART IS HARD!

Ta-Nehisi Coates, "Between the World and Me"
>Everyone's a little bit racist

Simone De Beauvoir, "The Ethics of Ambiguity"
>Existentialist navelgazing

Albert Camus, "The Plague"
> More existentialism, but this time people die

Brene Brown, "Daring Greatly"
>What if being some sort of cuck soyboy was actually kinda badass?

Atul Gawande, "Being Mortal"
> Killing them softly, with his loving take on the role of modern medicine in death.

Ali Rivzi, "The Atheist Muslim"
>Being an edgy teenager, but on "difficult" mode

Muhammad Yunus, "A World of Three Zeroes"
>Zero Poverty, Zero Unemployment, and Zero Net Carbon Emissions... also zero sex scenes.

ETA: short, possibly misleading synopses by someone who hasn't read these books.

I completely agree. There are two topics the whole:
>The most important part is not a conviction but staying alive.

thing reminds me of.

1 - Daniel Khaneman in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow discusses the differences between the experiencing self and the remembering self. Briefly, the way we experience an event is very (very) disconnected from the way we remember and event.

Prioritizing survival of rape suggests that the memory of rape is less painful than the experience of rape itself. Arguments to the contrary get into territory of suicide, which is just as hard to discuss as the topic of rape.

2 - Atul Gawande in his book Being Mortal talks a lot about people diagnosed with terminal illness. For some, the focus of their lives becomes less about survival and more about controlling the narrative of their story, and how they're remembered.

At the point of diagnosis, many people will opt for painful chemo/radiation even for an extremely slim chance of a few extra years/months. Others disregard treatment and focus on controlling the parts of their lives they value the most - friends, family, unfinished projects. The latter group understands they're possibly shortening their lives, but choose to do so in order to retain control of their life story.

>We can say -I'd do this or I'd do that, but we don't know.

You're 100% right. I have no real idea what I'd actually do in the situations this thread talks about. I know what I hope I'd do.

>Let's hope none of us ever find out!!

I concur!

u/Pleasedontstrawmanme u/Umbly u/maluno22

In context, its about a minority of women who claim the large F (feminism) who scream and bray about 'objectification' which was an invented idea by large F, as a means of shaming and dominating sexual discussion and behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVYiJV_1IwM


Consider the fact that women attack others through Reputation Destruction rather than punches to the face. Consider also that big F has always described and reduced sexual activity down to Power Games, Power Dynamic, etc.

Within the context of PD and PG, the term objectification makes sense. They have literally been pounding away at these memes since the 1960's, to shift the narrative from "people are selfish and sometimes want to just have sex with someone for pleasure" to "men, specifically, objectify women by desiring them sexually without knowing anything about their family life or their accomplishments, or lack thereof".

To put it another way, does a lion or chimp objectify potential partners because its horny and just wants to screw the other? if humans are an extension of basic animal behavior, then objectification has to be something all species do. But you can see the problem with this because objectification is defined by large F as willful and intentional degradation of others, and I don't think any animals, even humans, are doing that simply because they find something attractive.

If there's one thing you notice among large F people who discuss objectification, they typically fall WELL outside social norms of beauty. The suffragette panels of the early 1900's looked like a leper colony.

https://www.amazon.com/Manipulated-Man-Esther-Vilar/dp/1905177178

Consider the fact that today merely questioning the honesty and integrity of large F or people who cry about objectification gets you attacked and shamed nearly universally in the western world. Consider also the fact that narcissism, sociopathy, and psychopathy exist in women just as much as it does in men, and the fact that such people are NOT 100% raving lunatics, but often careful and meticulous in playing with others and looking for power and dominance over others. Consider that every group or movement can be co-opted by people with truly evil intentions and no actual connection to humanity.

Consider that all of this "women are wonderful" business has provided the PERFECT cover for female narcissists, sociopaths, etc, to abuse, shame, humiliate men in general or specific for any man transgressing against women by "objectification" while not being sexually valuable.

What's that joke? How to avoid sexual harassment. Step 1: Be attractive. Step 2: Don't be unattractive.

Women seem perfectly fine being "objectified" if the guy has some sort of value or attractiveness. I've met more than one woman who complained about their ex being "objectifying" or "sexist" AFTER breaking up from 3 years. And more than once this has involved really decent guys who actively tried to keep the relationship together.

In particular, there was one woman who claimed her ex tried to rape her, which is completely ridiculous because she was always a slut and was once fucking 3 different guys before she got with her boyfriend, he is not a rapist and he's now happily married to a non-psycho, and she consistently gets drunk and tries to have sex with the nearest pole. There's no need for him to try to rape her. And when she talked about it, there weren't any details, it was just vague suggestion. This same person also showed me texts of another guy talking about his dick to her, and she was pretending to be upset about it, but it was really a demonstration of sexual value because she had been fucking this guy previously and was using him as a form of narcissistic supply, for sex and attention, when she was lonely, and then shit talking him when she wasn't. She's been PUA spinning him as a plate for 2 years.

What this comes down to is Reputation Destruction as Revenge because of ill will and bad feelings, or laying the groundwork for sympathy, etc.

Maybe not all men have experienced the worst that there is in women, and they can count themselves lucky. Maybe they HAVE experienced the worst, but have been unable to understand it or reason it out because they've consistently been fed the narrative that men are predators and women are victims of men, and that "women are wonderful", so they can't conceive that women could be highly manipulative and that especially women who want to dominate would claim positions of authority, like large F, to manipulate men on a grand scale.

Just look at how women are benefiting from the double standard, able to behave that way while men basically cant. Look to who benefits and who is controlled, and you should see that its all a game of power.