Key Thinking (Allowed)

I'm curious where I stand these days on the political spectrum. I identify as a radical centrist, giving both sides their due and chosing neither (most of the time). But I suppose our views are relative to one another, so my moderate thoughts might seem more leftist or conservative, depending on the populace I'm a part of. Anyways, you be the judge, based on my answers to each question. A video version of this podcast is available on my Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/pew-research-98011067 I would love your support over there, where I have a lot more video content.

Martin Luther King dreamed that people would one day be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. How are we doing with that?

It is more just and virtuous to believe in a homeland, to advance society through education, medicine and technology, to recognize the human rights and dignities of women, children and gays, to attract tourism of all sorts... all of this is more virtuous than to hate your neighbors, to pursue above all else their destruction, to fight for holy war, to insist on the utmost word of one's god, to use human shields, to continually advocate for war while also crying victimhood.

The Los Angeles Dodgers have been going through quite an interesting set of controversies lately, surrounding their LGBTQ Pride Night in June. It's been pretty silly to watch. And it makes me wonder: why are things that are meant to be inclusive so often actually divisive? Is it wrong to focus on celebrating truly universal things? Given that people's interests and experiences vary so wildly in a pluralist society, what's the proper amount of compromise?

A New Yorker died on the subway recently. He was mentally unwell, and the city hadn't done anything productive to deal with his situation, which was ultimately decided in a complicated and controversial form of vigilante justice. This is a teaching opportunity for New York and our society - it'll be interesting to see how it plays out. Hopefully radical politics don't interfere with what can certainly be a rational and popular solution: mandatory institutionalization.

I was banned from several subreddits recently, for merely commenting in a totally separate community. Maybe you think it's a good thing, that certain voices be silenced in order to protect others from dangerous ideas, or something like that. But it must be recognized: an insidious trend is growing - people are power-tripping, possessed by idiology, and turning everything political. Conversations are getting harder, people more radical, and spaces less tolerant. I shouldn't be banned from participating in a photo community merely for having certain skepticism about lockdowns. That doesn't make sense. And dare I say it: it's something straight out of 1984 and Big Brother - all activity is being monitored and screened for wrongthink. I hate to sound paranoid, and I really don't care too much, but even if you're on the side of power, why would you want to alienate your "enemies" to this degree? Nothing good comes from it.

Climate change is a real thing, and I'm not going to say that I don't care about it. But I will say that I don't worry about it to the extent that it feels like we're asked to. I don't see it as the biggest crisis of our time, and in fact, I think that mindset can be quite dangerous. I'm more just confused why we don't appreciate our ability to master our environment, and aim to harmonize with the planet, instead of remorsefully deify it. I don't relate to the worship of this earth goddess concept - nature is amazing, but it's also terrifying. Our ability to control and coexist with it should be commended and encouraged, not demonized and shamed. And indeed, it is the poorest of humans who pay the price for our seemingly virtuous environmentalism. How arrogant are we to shill these sorts of ideas to the less fortunate?

A new study shows that mask mandates were essentially ineffective. The lab-leak hypothosis is being strongly favored by a broad consensus. The impact of the actual corona virus seems less and less fatal, while draconian lockdown measures are proving worse and worse for individuals and society as a whole. And yet, throughout the havoc of the pandemic, we were told to "trust the science", as if science were some sort of authoritative monolith, not to be questioned. Ironically, that's the very opposite of what science teaches us to do. And in fact, there were plenty of scientists who doubted Faucci's policies, but who were effectively silenced by a mainstream narrative. What the hell happened?

What counts as violence? Certainly a mass shooting, but how about being bumped on the subway? How do we balance our sensitivities with the brutal facts about the world? Can we regulate away everything that offends us? Is it really possible to live in a safe world? I think not. And I wonder what the point even is to the whole gun control debate. The real issue to be dealing with, in my opinion, is mental health care and support. I'd rather work towards a more compassionate system for derranged people than to pretend than anything substantive can be done about gun culture (which, by and large, is harmless).

Determing the worth of something is difficult enough... we usually let markets decide for us. But value? There are so many more factors than price and quality. Opportunity costs, time and energy, other people's influences and perspectives - it's a tricky endeavor, and one I've been sort of obsessed with lately. Whether it's a commodity, experience or life decision, deciding on what I value - and how to best do that - is something I really need to think through.

I recently returned from another trip to the Caribbean, this time centered on the Panama Canal. It wasn't the most amazing trip. In fact, I don't really even recommend going to Panama (unless you have a clear reason to).

I think of myself as a hedonist - I pursue instant gratifications, even at the risk of long-term goals. Does that make me an addict? I recently accompanied a friend to a sex+love addiction anonymous meeting. They gave me a pamphlet with 40 questions. I answer them now.

California: 40 million people, 12% of the USA, 52 House Representatives (down from 53), 1 of 2 senators up for (re)election, a slew of top Democrats up for re-election, including Gavin Newsom. It's not always clear which way to go here, and of the nine offices, I'm splitting my vote somewhat evenly between Dems and Reps, because I think conservatives do have ideas and attitudes worth injecting to our suffering state. I value balance more than anything, and despise ideological indoctrination, so it's worth finding opportunities to side with people who see the world differently. I'll also be abstaining from a few races, including Governor, because neither candidate sits well with me. CA Senator: Alex Padilla US Representative (30th District): Adam Schiff Governor: - Lieutenant Gov: - Secretary of State: Shirley Weber Controller: Lanhee Chen Treasurer: Fiona Ma Attorney General: Nathan Hochman Insurance Commisioner: Ricardo Lara Member State Board of Equalization: - Superintendent of Public Education: Lance Christensen

Everyone running for government positions in Los Angeles is left of center - there are no conservatives or Republicans in these races. That said, some candidates are more radically far left than others, and some are more sensible. This city has been plagued by homelessness for too long, all under the watch of the Democratic party. Crime is on the rise. Am I crazy for wanting a different perspective to hold public office? To balance things out a bit? I'm not eager for conservatives to take over at all, but I have no allegiance to tribal progressive thinking. Instead, I'm scouring the stances of each candidate for sensibility, concern for the commons, and action. Rick Caruso for Mayor Hydee Feldstein Soto for City Attorney Paul Koretz for Controller Mitch O'Farrell for City Council (District 13) Adam Schiff for US House of Representatives (District 30) No on LH No on SP Yes on ULA Yes on LACC LA No on County measure A Yes on County measure C

Liberty, efficiency and respect for the commons - these are my guiding principles as a voting citizen. I don't believe in moralizing through legislation, and I prefer pragmatism over idealism for its own sake. It's also crucial to contextualize every policy decision, to consider its costs as well as benefits, and to scrutinize the players, profiteers and motives behind each argument. All that said, hopefully we can all appreciate our shared goal for the flourishing of humankind. The California mid-term election ballot is here, and I offer an explanation for the seven propositions: Prop 1: Yes to officially legalizing reproductive autonomy Prop 26: Yes to decriminalizing sports betting on tribal lands Prop 27: Yes to decriminalizing sports betting online, taxed for state funds Prop 28: Unsure about $1 billion specifically for K-12 arts/music education Prop 29: No to overcomplicating dialysis clinics Prop 30: Yes to taxing multimillionaire earners to fund electric vehicle infrastructure and to fight wildfires Prop 31: No to prohibition on certain tobacco/nicotine products

I spoke last time about energy as fuel, and as a tradable, creatable commodity. Now I'd like to speak more to this amorphous, spiritual form of energy. This is a quick meditation on the invisible forces in our lives, and how we might perceive them.

en·er·gy /ˈenərjē/ noun 1. the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity. "changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being" (Similar: vitality, vigor, life, liveliness, animation, vivacity, spirit) 2. power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines. "nuclear energy"

I'm recuperating in my hometown at my parents' home, passing time with video games and other indulgences, wondering about life and what I should really be doing with myself. It's a balancing act, to be sure: being nice to yourself while also monitoring your habits for dangerous tendencies. We pursue what makes us feel good - that's not exactly pleasure, but more like flow and being present. All sorts of interests can accomplish this; some of us pursue one or two, others like me pursue many of them. It makes me wonder what I should really be doing at any given moment... Life is full of so many possibilities...

It's inevitable that we feel disappointed, and disappoint others in our interpersonal relationships. How do we handle it? What is to be done with the negative feelings involved? Whose responsibility are these feelings? A close friend disappointed me in a very casual, small way - nothing to fight over at all - and yet we did manage to have a little fight about it. Why? Let's think about it.

Do our feelings matter? What's the point of them? I feel things, but I try not to talk about them too much, except as they pertain to useful thoughts. Maybe I complain about life as much as anyone, but does anyone want to hear about it? Lately I'm feeling especially disorganized and out of sorts. Maybe it's useful to think through this sort of feeling, this annoying feeling of not having things together. I would very much like to be a more organized person, for everything in its right place.

I'm currently disabled from a recent injury, and thinking a lot about what it means to be "able-bodied", and this idea of ableism. And that gets me thinking about the tremendous social pressure these days to use "inclusive language". No one likes to feel excluded, and I can say now with experience that it's no fun to feel like the world was designed without you in mind... But is it really possible to help marginalized people with language? Is that the sort of help people really need? Or might we be enforcing such language for more nefarious reasons, like promoting our own self-satisfaction? Ultimately, it is inevitable that we all feel excluded from time to time, alienated very fundamentally from the world and others, and I just wonder what the point is to use nicer language around hard truths. I, for one, don't feel much better to be coddled and pandered to through language. I'd much prefer real help, like through attention, love, medicine, encouragement, etc. Ultimately, our lives are much more impacted by interpersonal relationships, not through any sort of hegemon of language and systemization. So why don't we work to be more inclusive where it actually matters?

Characterized by having a fear or disdain of woke ideology. After meandering around the topic of trans activism, I've settled on sharing my triggered thoughts and feelings on all such topics here: the commonality behind all radical leftist PC language in general, which evokes in me more than anything else a strong sense of ALIENATION. What is this strange new world order we're subject to, and why must we submit to it?? How many friends and connections do I lose as a result of dissenting? What's more alienating: acquiescence or rebellion?

Roe v Wade has been overturned, officially. This topic remains such a difficult one for us to discuss collectively. For me, to record this alone, in my room, it's somehow a meditative experience. Join me as I think out loud in all sorts of directions, free (as possible) from all the noise I've been seeing on the internet.

I'm embracing contrarian thinking. I've never thought of myself as controversial, but people tell me I am. I just appreciate nuance, and despise groupthink. It's important to seriously consider facts and goals before forming opinions, and this podcast offers a space to do that.

Roe v Wade is in danger. What does this mean? Is it really as bad as liberals say? And what kind of victory would that mean for conservatives? There's plenty of nuance here that I think is worth considering.

A critique of going to a baseball game, and going to the cinema. Both of these collective experiences should be nicer. Uptight, rigid attitudes and declining quality of product are making them unpleasant.

My dad and I are trying to make a best-of classic rock list. I think it's interesting how we each approach this sort of idea. And one has to wonder, perhaps: is it even worth it? How much energy is worth giving any random project?

A story of a Reddit comments section

Thinking through some of the complexities in this sad act of war by Russia against Ukraine. Is peace possible with Russia? Or does it have too many irreconcilable issues, geopolitically and psychologically?

Freedom, specifcally personal liberty, is one of my fundamental values. There are some current events that might be threatening it. The Canadian government's threats against a trucker Convoy, and the recent attempt at canceling Joe Rogan, are both kind of interesting topics to discuss through the lens of personal freedoms. When are we not allowed to say what we think?

I like recognizing the pagan roots in our holidays. The winter solstice is the shortest day of the year in the northern hemisphere, where the sun is at its lowest point. It's a good reminder of the delicate balance of life, of how unkind nature can be, but how bountiful it can be in the future. I'm feeling especially pensive this year, especially worn out, and also sick. I have Covid.

What does it mean to have an open mind? Is it possible to have strong convictions if you're mind is actually open? Are there any dangers to opening your mind to certain ideas? Is it always the coolest thing, or is passé now to be open-minded?

Kyle Rittenhouse is a 17yo boy on trial for murder right now in the USA. Is he guilty? I don't think so. And I say that without any ideological allegiances. Let's take out our political biases and look at this case as rationally as possible (if it is even possible). There's a lot to unpack here.

I aim for a minimalist life with maximum output. I succeed at one of those more than the other. I believe technology and design can help solve my output issues by removing barriers - both physical and mental - in my work. This applies to travel as well, and to my neurodivergent brain in particular.

I took the Wahl-o-Mat online quiz and it tells me I should vote for the Humanist party. "(Die Humanisten) see themselves as a social, liberal and progressive party that focuses on the freedom of the individual. In doing so, she invokes evolutionary humanism and advocates a critical-rational political approach that relies particularly on scientific knowledge and - regardless of the political trend - is open to all effective political concepts." I go through the 38 questions and compare my answers to the Humanists, as well as the SPD, and also the AfD, just out of curiosity.

Just a bit of an anxiety attack on an autumn day; lots of admin stress. I'm bad at bureacratic work.

Just a few thoughts on the Afghanistan situation that I haven't heard articulated yet. Mainly: Is this even a real, legitimate sovereign country? Maybe its borders are an inherent problem. Maybe the global community should help the major ethnic tribes in the region establish their own autonomous states. Do Westerners who support isolation as a foreign policy really have such little conviction in their own underlying value systems? It seems evident that the Western system of governence (based on enlightenment values) has led to bountiful human flourishing. Why is it so bad to encourage other places to adopt this? Maybe it's more a problem of methodology (specifically the American neo-conservative type). Who is the enemy here, really? Maybe it's worth reminding ourselves about jihad, and its history. And perhaps there's somethere there to learn about the value of passion.

"A flâneur is an ambivalent figure of urban affluence and modernity, representing the ability to wander detached from society with no other purpose than to be an acute observer of industrialized, contemporary life." I am a flaneur. "The flâneur was, first of all, a literary type from 19th-century France, essential to any picture of the streets of Paris. The word carried a set of rich associations: the man of leisure, the idler, the urban explorer, the connoisseur of the street. It was Walter Benjamin, drawing on the poetry of Charles Baudelaire, who made this figure the object of scholarly interest in the 20th century, as an emblematic archetype of urban, modern (even modernist) experience.[1] Following Benjamin, the flâneur has become an important symbol for scholars, artists, and writers. ... The term has acquired an additional architecture and urban planning sense, referring to passers-by who experience incidental or intentional psychological effects from the design of a structure." "The flâneur's tendency toward detached but aesthetically attuned observation has brought the term into the literature of photography, particularly street photography. The street photographer is seen as one modern extension of the urban observer described by nineteenth century journalist Victor Fournel before the advent of the hand-held camera."

Presence, awareness and trasnscendence of ego - reflections on reading Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth. Be one with the universe.

Pride Month honors the hardfought accomplishments of the gay rights movement, but has become a sort of husk of what it's meant to honor: a limp season of market pandering to an already progressive USA. Rainbow flags are worn by countless logos, signifying a point so obvious to so many as to constitute almost nothing.. except dutiful virtue signaling. What's the point of all this?

Drugs are substances that alter consciousness, broadly speaking. But their subsets are vastly different: psychedelics are nothing like opioids, and even within a class like uppers, crystal meth is wildly different than caffeine. Let's think through the reasons why people take various drugs, explore the underlying implications and consequences, and contextualize each case, especially within party culture.

Here's an endorsement to travel again. I can recommend Miami, Florida, for people that want some fun and sun. Covid is less threatening these days and it's time to get back out there.

I used to be "pro-Palestine". Now I'm "pro-Israel", but to be honest, I'm mostly just annoyed by how society talks about this topic. Why is this the singular geopolitical issue that bascially everyone has an opinion about? And why is it so much trendier and cooler to support Palestine?

What is sexism? I don't even know anymore tbh, but I know it's a sort of third rail that I sometimes flirt with, depending on context. I want to discuss this honestly and openly, and really explore what sort of ideas I hold that could be problematic. I'm taking an IDR Labs test here to figure out if I may indeed hold any sexist attitudes.

I remain pretty agnostic about it. People that want a vaccination should get one (and have access to it). The goal is herd immunity; the real goal is freedom of movement, open culture and a return to "normalcy". I want to live! And if getting a little bit of death in my arm leads to that, then I'm for it. But it should be a personal decision, ultimately.

Moral Foundations Theory attempts to explain individual differences in psychology and political intuitions, as well as to make sense of the many instances of moral outrage and offense that are increasingly seen in public debate. This is part 2of 2 episodes, in which I take this Moral Foundations test: https://www.idrlabs.com/morality/6/test.php

Social scientists argue that there are substantial variations in human morality, and that these differences influence not just a person's decision making and reasoning processes, but also their political outlook. In recent years, researchers and scholars from all over the world have converged on the framework on Moral Foundations Theory in an attempt to explain these individual differences, as well as to make sense of the many instances of moral outrage and offense that are increasingly seen in public debate. By drawing on findings from their research, this test aims to give you your scores according to the Moral Foundations framework. This is part 1of 2 episodes, in which I take this test: https://www.idrlabs.com/morality/6/test.php

Just a little rant about this dumb night I had. Feeling triggered, might delete later.

"The houseless community" is being kicked out of Echo Park Lake, Los Angeles. Activists are protesting this as an issue of compassion for the homeless - the city and police are the villains in that narrative. But how fair is that? Is the argument to just allow the homeless to stay in our city parks? Yes, the city has to do a lot more to solve homelessness, but how is this a bad step?

I'm restraining myself. Sometimes I really just want to rant about something in this stupid world, but then I feel embarrassed by it, as if you'll judge me too much for saying something controversial or "wrong". But what if you don't actually understand what am saying? Or what if you think I don't understand you, but I do? Why is dialogue so hard anyways?

I want the caution to accept things I cannot change, the daring to change the things I possibly can, and the wherewithall to know the difference.