Thursday, June 08, 2023

To Vladimir Putin: Surrender.

 I've been reading the Russian Primary Chronicle (Povest'. The Laurentian redaction, as I don't have the Hypatian). Don't read to much into that, as it just happens to be Russia's turn... I had been reading Japanese history and China is next on my list.

Anyway, I can see what Putin is talking about when he says that Ukraine is historically Russian territory. BUT... one can't read this without acknowledging the importance of Kiev as the center of early Russian culture.

With that in mind, I have a suggestion for Vladimir Putin...


Surrender.


It seems to me if he really wants to go back to the way things were, he shouldn't half-ass it. He can just go back to the way they were. He should simply surrender to the authority of Kiev; and in so doing, restore the historical hierarchy. I mean, does he want one Russia or not? Is tradition important to him or not? There needn't be a shot fired. All he needs to do is bend a knee and he gets everything he says he wants.

I don't really expect him to do that, but if you're going to roll back the calendar to undo the past I don't see the advantage of picking one date over another. After all, if he wants Ukraine for its historical importance, why not restore that while he's at it? Anything less rings a little hollow.

Thursday, January 12, 2023

Wizards of the Coast Rolls Nat 1 on Copyright

 I saw this bit of nonsense online:

https://www.polygon.com/23540640/dnd-ogl-1-1-leak-dungeons-dragons-pathfinder-2e-wotc-hasbro

It's an article by Charlie Hall entitled, 

D&D’s stricter licensing rules might impact some beloved RPGs

The OGL 1.1 leak may give Hasbro’s golden goose some very sharp teeth

[tldr; Wizards of the Coast (owned by Hasbro) are considering new licensing terms that would supercede the Open Gaming License. Such terms would be more restrictive and would require game designers who make more than $750k to pay royalties. Charlie imagines that other companies using the OGL would be "in jeopardy".]

Sorry, Charlie. They WON'T.

By law, game mechanics are explicitly non-copyrightable. Anyone who complies with the OGL 1.0a has already agreed not to use any of the features of the game that are copyrightable. IOW, the OGL grants you exactly nothing that it's within Hasbro's (parent of Wizards of the Coast) ability to restrict.

Here's an example of what I mean, and I'm linking to a copy of the OGL 1.0a for comment (and so you can see for yourself. I'm going to break this out into several comments:

The OGL defines "Open Game Content" as follows:

"(d)"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity."

Game mechanic, methods, procedures, processes and routines are exactly those things that are not copyrightable in the first place. You can copyright or trademark the expression of a game... the visual design, character backstory, descriptive elements... iow, the sort of fluff that have nothing to do with game mechanics and are useless to those creating new game content... but you cannot copyright the rules.


The OGL defines "Product Identity" as follows:

"Product Identity" means product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content

For the most part, these are the things that are already restricted by copyright. Trademark and creative expression. And with regard to Product Identity, under the OGL "You agree not to Use any Product Identity" without a separate license agreement. Same with Trademarks. IOW, all rights are reserved. They grant you nothing that's theirs to give.

However, some of these items are NOT normally copyrightable. A spell or enchantment, for instance, when simply stated without creative embellishment, is nothing more than a process. Most magical or supernatural abilities are taken verbatim from existing real-world lore, or are so generic as to be unenforceable from a creative licensing standpoint. You simply couldn't use their specific description of it. By agreeing to this license, you give up rights that you would otherwise have.


The OGL specifies what is granted by the license:

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content[emphasis added]

That's all. Note that "Open Game Content" consists only of the features that cannot be restricted by copyright anyway. You've granted nothing else. If you want to include anything that's covered by Product Identity or Trademark, you need a separate license.

This "license" grants you nothing.

Now, you might have noticed the phrase "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license". Looks nice, but you already have that with regard to "Open Game Content" under copyright law. It's a cheap way of looking generous while giving zilch.

I've heard commentary that "perpetual" somehow means WotC can't revoke the license. If they did, they'd be doing you a favor. In reality, it's the fact that "Open Game Content" isn't copyrightable in the first place that prevents WotC from controlling your usage. The "license" is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, WotC seems to bluff you into thinking they can control your use by another clause...


The OGL is weasel-worded:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

WotC seems to believe they can use ambiguous wording to bluff you. Thus they can simply declare that the OGL 1.0a is "no longer authorized".

So what?
 You have no obligation to accept a later license. Those things defined as "Open Game Content" don't require a license in the first place. By revoking the OGL 1.0a, WotC would simply be freeing you from the other restrictions of the license that were placed upon you. For instance, you would now be able to freely state that your game is "compatible with D&D". Non-copyrightable items that were improperly labeled "Product Identity" (such as spells) would continue to be at your disposal.

And for those features that are copyrightable (defined within "Product Identity") the OPL 1.0a already requires a separate license. Rescinding the OPL cannot rescind those separate licenses.

IOW, They didn't grant you anything, neither can they take anything away if you don't let them. They just want you to think they can. They either hope you have the worst lawyer in the world, or they've actually hired the guy themselves.

Furthermore, in contract law, judges hate weasel wording. Ambiguous terms are practically always interpreted in the most favorable light for the party that did not write the contract. If by a reasonable person it reads as if it's in perpetuity, it is. "Perpetuity" can't be revoked. 

And no, I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think you need to be in this case. The only legal advice I'm giving is that if you're creating content under the OGL, see a bona fide lawyer. I just wouldn't be surprised if it were a pretty short consultation.


Conclusion:

So in my opinion... this is a big fat nothing-burger. WotC gave you nothing, can take nothing away, and can only hurt themselves by revoking the license since you have no obligation to agree to a new one, nor any incentive or need to do so. You don't need to pull products from the shelves. You don't need to stop crowdfunding. You don't even need to pay the Danes any gold.

Personally, after this PR fiasco, I would not label my open game content as being "compatible with D&D" since that would give WotC free advertising that they didn't pay for. But I certainly would have no compunctions about creating modules and other content that were totally compatible, and even ramping up such efforts as a big FU.

That said, I think the proper response is to just keep gaming, and just not buy items produced by WotC. You don't need them... at all. And in a couple of days when they issue the inevitable walk-back, don't forgive them. Just let Rome burn.

Oh, and to Wizards of the Coast:
Image via Wikimedia












Saturday, August 20, 2022

Science, Banking, and Computer Flim-flam

 The following article by Gregory Wrightstone appeared on PJMedia today:

Corruption of Climate Science Supported by Flawed Models

Oddly, this reminds me of the S&L failures in the 1980s. Most economists will tell you about rising interest rates due to inflation outpacing the income from long-term mortgages at lower fixed-rate interests. Fewer will tell you about the S&Ls attempts to recoup these losses with riskier loans. And fewer still will tell you what I know to be the case... these "riskier" loans didn't look risky to the S&L loan managers at the time due to the introduction of a new factor: Lotus 1-2-3

The electronic spreadsheet made it very easy for entrepreneurs to paint rosy pictures of their future earnings, which were easily swallowed because they were the result of "computer models". Computers were new, therefore magical, and their pronouncements were gospel even though they merely output the wishful thinking of the modelers.

Fifty years later, computer models are no less "magical" to the general population; even more so now that they are so complex that laymen have no hope of wrapping their heads around them. But they are no less the output of the wishful thinking of the modelers. And I say this as someone who spent his entire career designing software.


Friday, August 19, 2022

Big Boys Don't Cry

 I am always impressed by Caroline Furlong's blog posts. She's a writer, and writes about writing. Today she posted the following:

Big Boys Don’t Cry! – A Look at Male Vulnerability in Fiction

I think that everything she says here is pretty spot-on from her perspective. But it is a female perspective, and I hope here to give a little more insight by showing you the other side of the coin. 

Here's a secret from the unpublished manual that all men keep in their heads:

Speaking as a male veteran of the US armed forces, it's not that men aren't ALLOWED to cry. People who write this type of fiction aren't concerned about pushing some agenda about what you are or aren't ALLOWED to do. In fact, it's quite the opposite: male characters frequently break rules and ignore social norms.

The plain fact is, men rarely cry. We will mope. We will cope. We will turn introspective and distant. We will deflect. We will process, prioritize, and focus. We will immerse ourselves in work, a hobby, or the task at hand. As any woman who has emo-dumped on a man knows, a man does not validate her feelings. Rather, he will search for causes and solutions. That's NOT what the woman wants. She will tell him he's being dismissive. But he's no more dismissive of her feelings than he is of his own. From personal experience, negative emotions are a PROBLEM to be SOLVED. Sorry, ladies; it's what we do. That's the nature of a man.

When we DO cry, 99% of the time it's in private or in the company of other men... and if you're a very lucky guy, you might have only one or two friends with whom you have that privilege, even in a company of soldiers. And when we do talk about a problem, there's not much crying. It's likely to come out emotionless and flat. But I assure you, that lack of tone coming from a close friend hits us like a brick. It's as if you physically saw the color drain out of someone's soul, life, and surroundings. You can NOT express the depth of that emotion with a lurid display. The one exception is that if a man is in a healthy marriage -- not some social contract, but a real, honest-to-God marriage -- he will cry in the embrace of his wife. And when that happens, this is the case where the woman gets to be the rock... his anchor.

Again, nobody forces us to do that. It's in our nature. Even sobbing in complete privacy doesn't happen much. It's far more likely to take the form of sitting in a dark room and quietly letting tears fall.

This doesn't apply to just grown-up men, either. Boys are incredibly unwilling to admit to having been bullied. Boys are more likely to address the problem through circumvention, withdrawal, or taking up a study of self-defense. If he still has the slightest glimmer of hope that he can solve the problem by himself, a boy will deny to others that it exists.

Note that all of the above applies to the majority of males whether they are physically strong or not; dangerous or not; intimidating or not. They're not consciously dialing things back for the sake of those around them. You might say they evolved that way for the long-term benefit of the species. And obviously there are those, both weak and strong, who are emotionally immature. But they're the minority.

Authors who write strongly believable male characters don't force them to weep on cue because that would not be believable. Being mostly men, the authors know that. Being mostly men, their readers/viewers know it, too.

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Sophie's Choice is a Crock.

 I saw this on FaceBook:


My response:

Just because you didn't think through the "conundrum" doesn't mean it exists. It's a common tactic for the villain to do a villainous thing and blame it on the hero. "And it will be YOUR fault," they say. NO. It's the VILLAIN'S fault. By posting this villainous pseudo-conundrum in which YOU take direct action, you choose to be a villain. The proof is above. It doesn't matter that you don't agree. ALL villains delude themselves into thinking they're the hero.

And the answer is, without hesitation: According to your scenario, you're going to drop ONE. I will try to save THE ONE YOU DROP. But if you drop either one, I will drop YOU, whether or not I manage to save one of the others. Still your choice.

To be perfectly clear about this scenario, you're willing to injure a baby to make a point. That's what terrorists do. I do NOT have to negotiate with terrorists. I do NOT have to play the villain's game. And I do NOT have to choose which evil you're going to commit for you. If you want to be the bad guy, suck it up, be the bad guy, and take the consequence. There's no outcome here where you're not on the wrong side of ethics and morals.


Everyone from Nazis to Islamic terrorists to the Green Goblin has tried this nonsensical argument. I don't play their evil, repugnant game. 

This is no different from any hostage situation.  Since they were very young, my sons knew that if such a situation arose, I'd tell the terrorist to put them on the line. I would then tell my boys, "I will avenge you." I'd expect them to do the same. The kidnapper would be made to know that he is responsible for their safe-keeping, and if any harm came to his victims, he would instantly lose all negotiating power and be utterly destroyed. Let the villain sort out whose lives they value. And always be prepared to face a no-win scenario with the knowledge that you can't save everyone, but you can dispense justice.

It wouldn't work every time... but if their tactic NEVER worked, they wouldn't do it at all.

I know there are some readers who might think I missed the point of the original argument, which was about abortion, not hostages. ABSOLUTELY NOT. If these people are willing to do that with an born infant, separated from the mother, it tells you everything you need to know about their character and the depths to which they would sink. They are evil to the core, and their choices reflect it. Neither do they have the self-awareness necessary to recognize that fact. Even in principle, they think it's valid to test your supposed hypocrisy against their desire to murder.

Don't let them do it. Call them out.


--==ooOoo==--


I think while I'm at this you might benefit from knowing my actual stance on abortion (as opposed to this crappy scenario). It might take a few words, but big deal. It's my blog.

I'm not taking anybody's choice from them. That's why I specifically insist on putting the choice back on the holder of the baby and the embryo. It's not I who choose FOR you. It's YOU who must make your own choices.

But "choice" does NOT just mean "have an abortion". One option isn't a "choice". You could choose to give life, to sacrifice, to sacrifice another to save yourself... it only seems easy if you've put sloganeering over real thought. The person who posted this scenario wanted this post to be thought-provoking. Fine. But that final "Now admit it" in the original post makes it clear that there's only one thought allowed, and I and one other were the only ones here not thinking as we were told to. Not asked. Not invited. Told.

And what we were told to think is bullshit. It's a bullshit exercise with a bullshit choice and a bullshit foregone conclusion. Anybody who can think can think around it and do laps around the people who were just told what to think.

I'll be quoting results of a survey made by Guttmacher Institute.

You're told to use phrases like "life of the mother", but this accounts for about half a percent of abortions.  "Rape and incest" accounts for 1.5%. These are fringe cases argued only by those who don't have enough votes to make a difference. "Health concerns" -- some of which are significant, and others of which are far-fetched -- account for about 12%. Out of that 12% I was given two sons, whose mother didn't think twice about the CHOICE she made... to sacrifice some of her health to give them life. Other women her age would have made a different choice. That's the thing about choice. There's not just ONE, and anyone who -- whether directly, through implication, or silence -- would have you believe that it means just the one thing is a liar.

4% of respondents... more than rape and incest and imminent danger to the mother COMBINED... gave no reason at all for abortion. They just wanted it. That's a pathetically sad CHOICE. There's no one on Earth empowered to tell me I have to agree with or support such a decision. It's a shitty decision. But it's theirs to make without my support or agreement. Who DID get my support was my wife. She was mostly bedridden for the last decade, and I spent the better part of two decades caring for various maladies until she passed away a little over a week ago. She couldn't take care of herself, so I did. Other men might have made a different choice. I think if you make a promise you should f*cking keep it.

People love to quote "the science"... but the science is that the embryo is a different organism, with different genetics, often a different blood type from the mother. And the mother is a... well.. a mother. It has a biological meaning. Birth isn't parthenogenesis at the last possible instant. That embryo is not "the mother's body" until separation. This part IS NOT a choice. It's biology. It doesn't change with anyone's opinions. Go ahead, try to argue it. But bring citations. Facts, not opinions. See if you don't look the fool.

People love that word "viability". There are many, many people who believe it's a virtue to defend those who cannot defend themselves. For those who do, IF YOU TRIED you couldn't find a shittier, more vile reason to kill something than "it can't take care of itself." If you've ever wondered why you can't convince those folks, I've just revealed that mystery to you. What you hold as a virtue, they see as a vice.

But vices are often seen as virtues by those who have deluded themselves into thinking that sex mainly for pleasure. Ask an evolutionary biologist, if you could stand a little more science. Sex is for procreation; pleasure is a wonderful little evolutionary adaptation that keeps you interested in procreating. You want that thang, and there ARE gonna be babies. Those children are NOT a mere inconvenience. They're the purpose of the act. Pleasure ensures that even the dumbest people pass on their genes.

Intelligent people KNOW that. They don't go around deluding themselves, proclaiming the fantasy that a different organism is "their body" when it demonstrably isn't. They don't claim that the few percent of people with valid risks justify shitty behavior on the part of the overwhelming majority of people who demonstrably do NOT suffer those risks. Intelligent people take precautions. They prevent pregnancies while understanding that sex is an inherently risky business. They are selective with their choice of partners so that when risks are realized they can take responsibility for their actions and live up to those responsibilities. The very few people with legitimate need for abortion don't justify the vast majority who just want to make the same mistakes over and over again. Y'know... that thing called "insanity".

Idiots do delude themselves.

Idiots tell you the purpose of sex is for your own pleasure.

Idiots tell you it's ok to make the same mistakes over and over again. They don't even recognize them as mistakes.

Idiots are insane. 

And they're running the asylum. 

And everything they touch, they ruin. Stable homes, two-parent families, economic stability, even racial economic mobility are all disastrously affected by abortion.

While I won't tell you that you can't have an abortion, I don't have to agree with it, and I don't have to support it. I don't even have to make it easy. These tiny visitors... these little embryos that spring forth that abortionists think magically turn into people when a pair of scissors cuts an umbilical cord... 

... they're people. They were people the whole time.

I don't care if you admit it.



Sunday, April 03, 2022

A Primer on Gender and Sex

 At one point in time the conversation around gender and sex was rational. This has ceased to be the case. Therefore, it's necessary that someone re-establish some sanity. Early on, people were under the belief that gender and sex are not the same thing

That's true.

Over time this has morphed into the opinion that they are the same thing. This flatly false view is now held by college students, professors, mainstream media outlets, and people who wish to look trendy and cool. Appearing to be ignorant was probably not high on their list of priorities, but that's where they are today.

So let's review.


SEX

Sex is a biological categorization. Examples of sexes are male and female. Despite what you may read in Wikipedia, these categories are synonymous with man and woman. Someone may have indistinct or ambiguous sexual characteristics. This is an astonishingly small minority of people who, due to some genetic factors, have both sets of sexual characteristics (are hermaphroditic), or are perhaps lacking them. Only this set of people are something other than male or female

In nature, many organisms have differentiated sexes. There are some dioecious trees that spawn male and female sexes. Examples are cedar, ash, mulberry, oxelder, persimmon, white ash, ginkgo, holly, red cedar, Osage orange, aspen and willow. As you can see, it's quite common.

Males produce sperm (or in the case of trees, pollen). Male humans have XY chromosome pairs.

Females produce eggs (seeds in the case of trees). Female humans have XX chromosome pairs.

None of the above says anything about a person's gender.


GENDER

Gender is a social construct. Without society, gender is meaningless. For instance dioecious trees have sexes; they do not have gender.

Examples of genders are masculine and feminine. Most of the time -- the vast majority -- a person's gender is aligned with that person's biological sex... masculine with male and feminine with female. This is what's meant when someone says cis-gendered. The word itself is an admission that sex and gender are different things. So don't get caught up in the embarrassment of listening to some "learned individual" who can't tell the elementary difference.

But it's possible to be a masculine woman or an effeminate man. This has always been the case. Always.

Although in recent years the word "gender" has acquired the additional meaning of "sexual preference" or "the expression of one's sexuality", it still doesn't mean one's biological sex. And though in the vast majority of cases gender and sex are aligned, it's possible that they're not. Masculine men can be attracted to other men (Google "gay bear"). Effeminate men can be attracted to women. Similar non-alignments are true of some feminine and masculine women.


TRANSITIONING

Some people have gender dysphoria. They think of themselves as a different sex. And some of those people with gender dysphoria undergo chemical and surgical procedures to pass as a member of that sex.  The usual ideal result is that the patient does indeed pass. In this event, no casual observer would guess that the patient wasn't born as what they now appear to be.

As this is not the same as being the opposite sex, the patient is forever dependent upon hormone treatments, and there's no real guarantee that any particular patient will convincingly "pass". But the patient feels strongly enough to make the attempt; and most people will politely acknowledge the attempt.

Other people make no attempt beyond some superficialities like haircut and wardrobe. Realistically, there should be no expectation of passing on will alone.

Whether a person passes or not, their genetics are unchanged. Just as you wouldn't expect your risk of sickle-cell anemia to increase simply because you "identify as" Black, you realistically can't expect your insurance to start paying for cervical exams if you don't have a cervix.


LANGUAGE - PRONOUNS

Until recently the word "gender" was used in language to represent masculine, feminine, and neuter. These are generally aligned with sexual characteristics; but as you already know if you've ever studied gendered languages such as French, Spanish, or German, this isn't always the case. A male cat might still be referred to linguistically as "feminine" despite what the cat thinks of himself. This isn't the only sort of characterization that might happen, though. Linguistic differences might occur on the basis of age, or social position, or whether you're part of a tribe or an outsider, for example.

The point here is that linguistic gender is not an expression of your sexuality. The cat doesn't care that you've "mis-gendered" him. And a woman speaking a genderless language doesn't "disrespect" you when she doesn't use pronouns that don't exist in her language. She's simply speaking her native tongue or dialect.

In English, there is only one pronoun pair that is used when addressing an individual face-to-face: you (nominative/objective cases) and your (possessive case). When someone is addressing you, some form of "you" is the only pronoun you will hear, irrespective of your gender, sex, or any other factor. (I say "some form" as a nod to colloquialisms such as y'all, ya, youse, etc.)


LANGUAGE - FORMS OF ADDRESS

There are other polite forms of address which offer the opportunity for misgendering: words such as "sir" and "ma'am", etc. I will discuss these below.


PROPRIETY

The plain fact of the matter is that your sexual preference makes... or should make... no practical difference in everyday life. No one but your sexual partners gives a damn who it is you sleep with. It's crass, crude, and distasteful to announce it... every bit as crass, crude, and distasteful as it is to be judgmental about your personal choices.

If you arrive at a dinner party with your mate, you'd be taken aback if someone made a big deal out of your choice of partner. This would be as true if you had an opposite sex partner as it would be if you were in a same-sex relationship. You'd expect people to keep whatever thoughts they had on the matter to themselves, just a cis-gendered man expects silence if someone else doesn't like his choice of wife.

Therefore there is no need to announce -- much less demand -- that others use pronouns for you that aren't common in the language. It's walking into a room and blatantly announcing to everyone things that are not their business, to be used in conversations that are none of your business. Remember, the pronouns used about you aren't for you. You will only be referred to as "you" as described above. If some other pronoun is used, you're not part of that conversation. 

I've seen people melt down in public when mis-gendered with a form of address such as "ma'am" or "sir". Such meltdowns are always self-destructive. For one thing, they happen when someone is addressing a person who unsuccessfully presented as another gender. 

Example: putting on a pair of trousers doesn't make a woman into a man... women have been wearing trousers far too long for such a thing to be notable, much less shocking or even informative. It's not some stranger's fault that you unsuccessfully presented as something that doesn't match your self-evident biology. They have no way of knowing whether they're addressing a woman trying to present as a man, one who's just working in the garden today, or one who is simply too poor to wear something else.

For another thing, the strangers used that form of address because they were trying to be respectful. Now, most people will give you a certain amount of respect by default. Saying "sir" or "ma'am" to a stranger is one way of doing that. But they don't owe you that respect... it's a gift. The proper response in such a case is, "It's 'sir', but I appreciate the courtesy." You have a good chance at receiving a "Sorry, sir," in response. Ask any doctor who's been called "mister". A little polite correction is all that's needed.

Remember, what little courtesy you initially receive is unearned. Anything beyond that must be earned. But what little you were given unearned can be lost far more quickly than you imagine if you decide to take a ride through Dicktown in the prickmobile and start shouting and blame-casting in response, particularly if you're not wearing your possible preferred forms of address all over your shirt.

In other words, if you want people to be polite to you, you must always assume that you must be the first to be polite. Simple as that. A good way to start is to remember that you're not special. There are billions of people in the world, and very few of them have sought out your Twitter profile and connected whatever pic is there with your real face, then committed your private language forms of address to your person. 

Notice that I am addressing this to "you", and have not used another pronoun for you in this entire post. See how that works?



NOTE: In case anyone is wondering, here's how I manage things, and this is non-negotiable in all cases, no exceptions. Everyone I meet is addressed as "you" in face-to-face conversation. In third-person reference, if someone presents as a woman and makes no stated preference, I use "she/her/hers"; and if someone presents as a man and makes no stated preference, I use "he/him/his". But if someone does make a stated preference then I retain "you" and otherwise refer to that person by name using no third-person pronouns at all. I don't announce my intention or start an argument over it; I just do it. After all, that person has chosen to be crass, crude, and distasteful by announcing things that are none of my business. My response is as respectful as it gets. Simply using a name skirts the issue entirely.

Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Real History and Real Masculinity

 If you'd like to see some real history, try the TimeLine channel on YouTube. They've got a great assortment of  content... notably including the masterful British archaeology series, Time Team


Another thing that recently piqued my interest here was a series of documentaries about the "Devil's Brigade". Composed of US and Canadian troops, this was the first group of elite special forces, requested by Churchill during WW2 and trained by the US Army. They were the fore-runners of the Green Berets, the Army Rangers, the Navy Seals, et. al

TimeLine airs a series of documentaries where modern recruits go through the same training, with the same equipment, as their WWII counterparts. Unsurprisingly (to me at least) even modern Rangers and Seals are daunted by the training.

Among these documentaries are interviews with actual surviving members of the Devil's Brigade. And it's in these conversations that you get a brief glimpse of what today's world is finding so hard to produce. 

Real. actual, men.

We hear so much of "toxic masculinity" that many people just take it for granted that masculinity is toxic... bad... to be avoided. They have no idea what masculinity is. They don't have clear examples in front of them. As one who did have that example in the form of my stepfather -- a Marine who served in WWII -- I feel very sad for the fatherless, mal-adjusted, mal-educated people who don't understand it.

But as I said, in these documentaries, you get a glimpse. You hear from actual men who liberated Anzio from Nazi tyranny. Real Nazi tyranny, not the pretended labels forced on people you simply disagree with. These men climbed sheer mountain faces with no safety equipment, carrying sixty pounds of munitions on their backs. Without armor, they braved flat, featureless fields of grass defended by Nazi machine guns... and they won the battle. And in the words of one member of the Devil's Brigade, "We did it for the women." 

No, they didn't do it to get laid. Rather, they laid down their lives so that their wives and daughters would not be faced with the horrors of war at home. They did it to liberate European women who most of the men would never see again. 

If you truly think that masculinity is toxic, unless and until you give me solid reasons otherwise (and thus far I've never met anyone anywhere who did) the most believable reason is that you have never met or spent time with an actual man. You've certainly never raised one.

It's horrifying to see women who so misunderstand what drives men that they actually view the prevalence of  men in the infantry as some sort of insult or slight. These men rate women so highly that they will literally sacrifice themselves for them. It's one of the greatest tragedies of our age that many of the women they would die for simply don't deserve it.

Marxists and Socialists were the great enemies of civilization in the 20th century. They remain the great enemies today. Their tactics remain as George Orwell described them... to re-define the language: to turn up to down; black to white; inside to outside; virtue to sin, etc. Being the one most effective bulwark against rampant totalitarianism, Masculinity is redefined as "toxic". And the sheer stupidity of believing these tactics is touted as wisdom. Well, calling it wisdom doesn't make it so. The teaching of lies is not education. And the facts of history are still facts, immune to re-interpretation.

None of these Leftist tactics are new. Hans Christian Andersen published The Emperor's New Clothes om 1837. Fortunately, there are still people who recognize a naked Emperor when they see one.

The members of the Devil's Brigade certainly could. That goes for the rest of the Greatest Generation, including my stepfather, Clifford Terrel Cribbe, who until his dying day remained a Marine, never an ex-Marine. Decades after the fact, when he still woke in the middle of some nights with flop-sweat, he knew what he fought for, and he knew it was worth it.