Blue trees are death

My company painted some trees out in our courtyard with blue paint. Apparently, this refers to an “art” project that Konstantin Dimopoulos started as a call to action about environmentalism. I don’t like it. 

The problem with blue trees is it’s glorifying the unnatural. When we call attention to the unnatural and dare to call it beautiful, we glorify what’s not natural. By doing so, we diminish the beauty that is everywhere. By doing that, we become less practiced, less capable, and less wanting to find beauty in the natural, the ordinary. You end up with fake tits, heavy makeup, and blue trees. 

I don’t like it as a form of protest either. I get it – “It’s not natural, but neither is the damage we’re doing to the environment with our pollution.” 

A far better form of protest would be if Dimopoulos and my company planted a huge flower garden and made a plaque saying these flowers won’t be able to flourish here or in other parts of the world if we continue letting cows fart, or whatever. Make it beautiful and inspire us to action. Not sickly and weird and make us think of what’s not naturally beautiful. Just just advertising 101. 

This isn’t creating. This isn’t art. It’s debasing what’s perfect. Art is about creating something beautiful. This is just warping something beautiful into something that’s less so. We want things to be what they aren’t, instead of finding beauty in what is. It’s strange to me: as lazy as humans are, it takes far more work to make the unnatural beautiful than it does to appreciate the beauty in what’s natural. Of course, I’m speaking about physical ease, not mental. I guess it’s hard to accept things as they are. I sometimes forget how brilliant I am. 

Just kidding, I don’t forget. Because I’m brilliant. 

It’s important to find beauty in truth – in what’s real. When we find beauty in truth, in the natural world, we can appreciate everything in life. We don’t need to change the external world to fit how we think it should present itself. We can only be happy when we enjoy what’s true. 

Humans destroy many things that are natural and good. We destroy currency by printing more of it and destroy the value of hard work (shameful Bitcoin plug). We destroy the beauty and paradoxes involved in sex when we print and mass distribute porn. Blue trees?

My point in all this, really, is don’t get a tattoo. 

And now, a poem.

The trees full of beauty and full of life
Were painted grotesque blue to symbolize
That life can be reduced by human strife
Made to suffer right before our own eyes

In destroying worldly natural sight
The object is made a tree no longer
Provider of housing and shade from light
But turned into a monstrous disorder

We call attention to the destruction
Through this destructive painted shade of blue
The trees were fine before our obstruction
Like perfect trees do not get a tattoo

Trees painted blue better symbolize pain
We feel when what’s natural we must stain.

“What does diversity and inclusion mean to you?”

A coworker was asked this at the office. He asked for my $.02, and I gave it. 

Diversity and inclusion means two things to me. First, there’s the meaning given by your intended use of the question. To that, diversity is the highest virtue man can strive for. It is the accumulation of wisdom that is acquired when men and women from all over work together and share a unique perspective. It enables problem solving and unlocks other qualities like compassion and our own ability to relate and enjoy others. 

Then there is the more literal question – what does it mean to me? 

Diversity to me is a political advertisement. It’s something we promise to do, because it is the right thing to do according to loud people on Twitter. It’s these loud people on Twitter that we as a company have become slaves to. They hold so much power over us, not because they are a pillar of morality which gives them a rational right to judge us, but because we do change our behavior when they call on us. We are afraid of what Twitter users will call us if we don’t say the right things. 

Right now, the blue check marks are calling for diversity. Of course, we know what diversity means. It means black people mostly, some Asians, and women. It means “less white-male-y”. To encourage diverse thought would be to encourage debate and differing opinions, such as this speech. But that’s not what we’re calling for. We can’t deliver this speech to a corporate audience. This speech presents an idea that is diverse. 

What is that idea? 

That diversity, as we’ve been handed, is just branding. It’s not about caring for other individuals. What, did we not care about the white people that used to fill these positions? Of course not. The company doesn’t care about you either. You are just as replaceable as the white man of the 80s. More so actually. There’s lots of labor available in the market, especially if we add more diversity through our contractors and employees in cheaper nations. 

Our company has an image problem. We’re “old-school”. We’re “white”. 

We’re not worse people than Elon and his engineers at Tesla who are “working to save the world”. We’re the exact same. We’re hard working individuals trying to find happiness on this planet. However, Elon and his company market themselves as saviors of the world, and our company chooses to belittle us and deny its nature as a profit machine. 

Diversity is the same as “green” and “great place to work”. It’s just an advertisement to Twitter checkmarks. 

I’m not against diversity. I’m against dishonesty. And honestly, I think the whole diversity kick exploits less expensive labor and makes us look good to lunatic Twitter accounts with 10,000 followers who will shriek if we don’t have an executive staff that reflects what that twitter user thinks it should look like which will become a public relations thing

The irony in all this is that there is a right answer to the question “What does diversity mean to you?” 

Rather than the spirit of the question being a celebration of different viewpoints, it’s just a way to confirm which team you’re on – the side of the corporate advertisement that is diversity, or the side of those that challenge what they’re told, the rebels, the ones that have been made famous throughout history because they had the courage to challenge the establishment. 

Real diversity is rebellious. We are all different in every way – why would the answer to this question be any different? Without different answers to this question, we are all the same, no matter what we look like. 

Everyone’s Wrong But Me

I got off the train yesterday on my way to my girlfriend’s house. I’ve made this commute hundreds of times. I would get off the train, walk three blocks to the bus stop, and catch the bus straight to her place. It’s the first bus stop on the route, so I’m guaranteed a seat.

Not yesterday. Yesterday there was a “Women’s March” and there were tens of thousands of people walking around after, well, whatever they did that day, and there were one hundred people waiting for my bus.

I went into a bar down the street, got a scotch, and caught an Uber.

I’m writing this post to outline why I think I’m right and why I stand my ground and stick to my definition of right even in the face of the millions of protesters that filled out in the streets yesterday across the United States.

1. They aren’t happy.

This is by far the most important reason. There wasn’t a united effort keeping these women and “men” together. I know this from the signs they were carrying.

Some wanted “more rights” for trans people. Some wanted to let the world know they were drugged and raped by horrible people one time in their life. Some wanted to signal to women that they aren’t like the rest of men that drug and rape women to fulfill their sexual urges.

The only thing in common with all these people is that they aren’t happy – there is something keeping them from being happy.

That something is men. Donald Trump more than other men.

I don’t agree that anyone holds your happiness hostage. Only you can choose to be happy. No one will make you be happy, and no one will make you be unhappy.

The mindset of the people gathered yesterday was one of victimhood. They are being oppressed by someone or something. Men, Donald Trump, corporate greed, the patriarchy.

This mindset, spread by others at the rally and fear-mongering media (remember, fear is the most powerful psychological trigger, so it’s what we choose to watch which creates the demand that the media fills so we pay them for it) is unhealthy because it removes personal accountability for individual happiness.

This doctrines spreads the message that we can’t be happy because someone or something is preventing us. There were tens of thousands of people wearing pink hats reinforcing that belief.

Everyone there attended because they are unhappy and unwilling to take responsibility for their own happiness. Happiness is a choice and a mindset, and all marchers choose not to. It’s lazy to play the victim and contradictory to the whole theme that women are “empowered”.

2. They don’t represent the truth.

The protesters do not spread truths. They even shame truths when they collide with their feelings.

There are two genders, no matter if someone wants to be called a third. 

Women are getting less and less happy the more they get in the way of feminist policies and social media gathering. 

I had a coworker ask me recently, “Ian, why are you always smiling? You always seem like you’re in a good mood.”

I said, “Because I am in a good mood. I accept the world how it is. Once you accept it how it is, and not how it should be, you can choose to find beauty in it. There is so much beauty in the world that is often missed.”

Feminists don’t accept the world as it is. They have a vision that’s purely emotional, and that vision is not productive and not utilitarian.

Feminism builds grand expectations that an “empowered” woman must reach success in a career, have sex with great men, and raise a great family with a great man when she decides to settle down.  

This isn’t honest because there are no consequences in this feminine picture. Not only is there a decreasing window to physically have children, but if a woman spends her younger years fucking dudes and building a career, a great man with options can choose to go younger and hotter.

You can’t have a beautiful, genetically-gifted cake that others want and fuck a lot of cakes too.

3. They don’t value beauty and strength.

This one is more of a personal vendetta because, like I mentioned under truth, I enjoy looking for beauty in the world. There is nothing more beautiful than a pretty woman.

There is nothing more masculine than a male warrior. No lion, bear, or wild horse can hold a candle to the human warrior when it comes to a sign of strength.

Beauty is a feminine quality. It is one that men find attractive and one that women should value, if not for personal esteem than for the men that find it attractive.

In a competitive market place, and there is none more competitive than the sexual marketplace, you must do the utmost to find a quality mate. Be beautiful, or you limit your options to men with no options. Attractive people have options. Don’t limit yourself to unattractive people.

Everyone I was with yesterday stood in opposition of me. They stood confidently together against truth, beauty, and personal accountability.

It brought a tear to my eye to see people brought to tears of joy at the sight of tens of thousands of people in no control of their emotions or happiness.

People brought their children to preach their doctrine of how men are the root of all problems.

How is a person supposed to think critically if they are raised in a pink hat being told by parents and teachers and people with signs that they cannot be happy if one individual remains an elected official?

This march, this movement – our current sociological state is unhealthy because it discourages happiness, discourages the search for truth and reason, and it’s visually unattractive.

March all you want and join others in your sorrow. But for the love of God and science and beauty, please leave your children at home.

Allow them the choice to be happy.

How two conflicting ideologies can be right. What to do.

Two conflicting ideas can be correct at the same time. Both sides of one argument can have facts that support it. That doesn’t mean the conclusion is logically sound.

Two ideas that are founded on values can both be correct.

It’s when ideas are founded in mathematical fact that have conflicting ideas that we must remove opposing views. Differentiating between fact and feeling is important to this, but we must address both situations carefully to avoid emotional outburst and physical conflict.

Math is provable. Scientific experimentation can show correlation or causation.

An example of a mathematical debate is the shape of the earth. It is round not flat.

There are two sexes, which is proven in biology.

There are other “hot topics” that are rooted in the hard sciences and because they stem from the hard sciences they have solvable solutions.

An example of this is the gender debate. How many genders are there? There are two genders. This is provable from studying biology and the evolution of any animal, including human.

“But gender is the sex you identify as, not your private parts.”

I’m skeptical but I’ll even give you that. Even if that’s your argument, the psychology of male/female dynamics evolved from the biological differences related to the private parts. There were no additional private parts to evolve from and therefore only the two genders evolved.

Psychology evolved from biology which evolved from chemistry and physics. 30 genders on a job application evolved from screaming lunatics that deny science.

Liberals and conservatives are weird and selective in their science denials. Liberals deny the previously laid out logic and conservatives deny climate change.

Both of these rely more on the observation over time – the evolution of the planet and the species, and scientists support both climate change and no more than two genders.

These scientific claims are based on math, experiment, and observation showing causation.

I caution against claims not based on these. Not against their merit, but in their absolute rightness. Many claims are made in absolutes that don’t have the bullet-proof reasoning to back them up. Many of these claims, the political ones, are based on values.

I caution against using correlation when making your passionate argument. With large enough data sets, there will often be a correlation in favor of the other side of the argument. Correlation can be shown with all sorts of cherry picked statistics.

Conflict is fine. Ideas compete. Physical conflict isn’t.

So let’s talk about it.

Let’s focus on the grey areas. They aren’t even really grey areas though. These areas are black and white to people with one set of values, and white and black for people with the opposing set of values.

What are these values?

There are numerous values that have a virtuous opposite. Sharing versus self growth. Pleasure vs discipline. Honesty vs kindness.

All of these values show up in political debate to some extent, however there is only one that attempts to define the law.

I believe freedom is the core value that politics tries to define.

On one side of freedom you have capitalists that believe you are more free if you are enterprising and create in order to earn your keep. On the other side are socialists who believe everyone is more free if we all contribute and help the lowest out of their reliance on measly sums of income for their livelihood.

On one side of freedom you have feminists that believe women are more free if they can earn the same incomes as men and challenge them in the workplace. Traditionalists say women are more free if they don’t have to provide for herself and the family and instead focus her energy on growing said family.

Gun rights people find freedom in their ability to defend themselves from evil. Gun controllers say there is more freedom in walking around knowing their neighbor doesn’t have a tool that can kill them.

Globalists want to integrate and bring other cultures together, and eliminate the dependency and thought of culture. Nationalists say we can be more free by promoting and embracing our own culture, which they deem best. One wants to just be and the other says it is our culture that allows us to just be.

There are two sides to all of these debate topics and I argue that neither is wrong. There are numbers to support both. Not bulletproof math. But numbers that can show different correlations.

Socialism may not even have correlations to positive attributes. But there’s numbers to prove a capitalist system isn’t working, just as there are examples to show that it is.

This argument that two sides can both be correct bring up more questions.

Can an idea be incorrect? What makes an idea incorrect if two opposing ideas can be correct? Where do these values come from? And, naturally, what do we do about this – how do we live peacefully and productively with people that will never agree with our politics?

One at a time.

Can an idea be incorrect?

If it is not founded in science and is not solvable either by math or repeated experiment and observation then one could argue the idea is not incorrect.

There can be a morality behind some ideas that are unpopular but cannot be logically bulletproof.

An idea can have little political support, or moral support from others. But if 49 of the population thinks we should live in a capitalistic society and 49 percent think we should be socialist and one percent think we should have a national socialist party that forbids Jews, maybe that person has had poor interactions with Jews that shaped his mind to believing this.

It’s hard to prove the idea wrong with logic, and he would have facts to support his side that point to how Jews are a net negative on the planet.

Now, there are laws that dictate you can’t commit genocide to a group of people, and that was determined by a court system to be objectively a good thing. I agree. By the way.

The actions should be suppressed. The idea should not be suppressed. The better idea that appeals to the larger population should win out in politics.

What do we do about this – how do we live peacefully and productively with people that will never agree with our politics?

You can’t.

Not without removing emotion from the picture. You have to be objective and to see things as they are, which includes seeing people as these emotional side-takers.

This is hard. You can’t have a productive discussion of politics because you are challenging someone’s core values.

Core values don’t change. They are built in. Also built it are emotions. Emotions evolved from needs to survive and replicate also. So while they do help us avoid burns and to pursue sex, they evolved before there was a need for political agreement among tribes across a nation or planet.

This middle ground is politics. And it’s messy. Because of the inherent values in individuals, no one is happy in the middle. We are, by nature, extremely conservative or extremely liberal. We can deny this, and many do, but that’s not being honest.

That’s why politics are, by the nature of those arguing, so divided.

Let’s acknowledge that and move on. These huge battles that move the scale a little to the right or left are not only productive, but they are the only way to maintain peace in a world that will always, deep down, vote right or left.

We all want to be free. But freedom is different based on the side of this value-dichotomy you align with.

For modern conservatives, freedom is the ability to choose what matters and pursue that, uninhibited by the wants and needs of others. For modern liberals, freedom is the ability to do whatever, whenever, and if necessary to share so that others can do the same.

Accepting this doesn’t make decisions easier. It does allow you to understand why there is another side to, what appears to you, the obvious truth.

Acceptance of this view allow you to be less emotional and more detached from the decisions that have slight control over your life. You do not allow these decisions to change your emotion, because it’s natural that they will try to do that.

Why is the country split so massively in the core values it holds? Where do these values come from?

I have an answer to that, but it’s messy, and requires a post of its own.

Coming soon.