Blog

Well, um, I love AI art, but if you'll recall, I asked permission to use the clipart avatars of people here for experiments. Like, Weird Al Yankovich is not required by law to get permission to do a song parody, but he does it anyway because he's just cool like that. So, I think this is not cool.

Like, I was also really, really dismayed when David Hogg, Stoneman Douglas shooting survivor, was photoshopped into Daisy Hogg, gun-totin' 2nd amendment supporter. (I won't share the images but you can look it up.) It seemed so cruel to do to a kid.

Celebrities are fair game for all kinds of weird fan art - I've seen worse than this hand-drawn and painted at sci-fi conventions - but the fact that these are political figures makes it a political attack. I have concerns.

________________

You know, I have been thinking about this since last night and I have reconsidered my original impression. My whole life I have seen politicians portrayed in ways just as unflattering in political cartoons without a single thought of impropriety. On further reflection, this is the same. So, fair game, I guess. We will just have to get used to this new form of political commentary.

I did something similar recently. I suppose I can share it.

I thought these were social commentary rather than attacks, but I wasn't sure. I'd probably have gone viral if I'd posted them three weeks ago but now they are commonplace, lol. I am still trying to figure out the line.

Not yet, but I'm not as cool or as important as Weird Al...Lizzo and Biden are not returning my calls.

But, I admit because of this discussion I have had a change of heart. Once I thought about it, I realized that this kind of use of personal image is at the heart of the political comedy that shaped my life, from the editorial cartoons in the newspaper, to Doonesbury, Bloom County and Mad Magazine, to the Daily Show and Stephen Colbert. I recalled that I had often seen Mitch McConnell photoshopped as a fairly believable turtle, or Hillary Clinton as a murder hornet, and literally no one objected to those portrayals. They are fair usage, and collectively they are adding tremendous richness and expression to our culture.

Just because I found the new drag images particularly off-putting, I can't really put aside the fact that it's the exact same thing. I think my homeless images are way less objectionable and more thought-provoking, but they are the same thing too. As a result, I have concluded that they are perfectly usable, without permission, like other social commentary we know and love.

Great question, thanks for asking!

Isn't the Hillary Killer Bee avatar the same thing?

I don't think we are going to find the reason why human gender and sexuality exist on a spectrum by looking for problems in the DNA. For one, I don't think it's a problem, and for two, the reason for it is not in the individual. Gay, queer and trans people exist for the same reason that there are both tall and short humans, fast and slow humans, leaders and followers, conformists and rebels, etc. It's because we evolved to produce variation. It literally takes all kinds.

There are many advantages to the group in having some adults who are less reproductive. As aunts and uncles, these individuals still help pass on the DNA of their family by helping parents raise offspring, or stepping in when something happens to the parents. You see this in animal species all the time - in herds and packs only certain pairs reproduce and everyone else just helps.

But more than that, human groups need many different kinds of thinkers. We need to see things from every possible perspective, to be able to exploit advantages that arise. We need people along all kinds of spectrums, from height to autism to gender, to produce as wide a range of personalities and intellects as possible. Because you never know what it takes to come up with the next great idea, innovation, art, story, or song. For humans, unique perspectives are evolutionary gold.

It's not easy to be born short, geeky, gay, etc. but people like this have been some of our greatest thinkers.

Maybe, but that seems pretty disturbing. How is THIS is the line? Average working class people are being massively exploited and have no security. We live with constant dysfunction in this country - political gridlock, rising violence, chronic ill health, including widespread addiction to alcohol. But, they are just sick of diversity awareness?

Perhaps they should look at who is actually causing their problems.

Yes. These sound like some people in desperate need to take a deep breath.

Are you familiar with Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow? Humans have two different mental processing systems - when they are threatened and responding to the environment, people use System 1, which is quick, effortless and relies on rush to judgement. When there is a need for problem solving, people use System 2, which is slow, deliberate, considers facts and employs reason and logic. This system produces better answers in many cases but takes a lot of resources.

The situation you describe is a kind of relentless System 1 thinking, caused by unease and deprivation. It would greatly help to activate some System 2 thinking. In System 2, it might be possible to acknowledge there are good reasons for questioning the church, etc.

This suggests a course forward. We need to get everyone what they need - food and housing security, good job opportunities, good educational opportunities, good healthcare options, well-funded communities. This should be something that everyone knows in their bones that they can count on, no matter what anyone else has. Then they will not be so desperate and stressed out and looking for the weakest link to dominate.

We are always at the mercy of System 1, because it acts first, but often to terrible effect. If we want a society that makes use of System 2, we have to provide security and time.

I'm not sure that's really the issue. For one thing, city life and country life are far from mutually exclusive - they have co-existed within all civilizations. Secondly, country people have phones, they watch Netflix and order on Amazon. Eventually most people embrace change when it begins to greatly benefit them. Part of making smart changes is making the benefits for everyone clear.

Most importantly, people can develop a much more live-and-let-live attitude about different cultures when there is shared prosperity. All kinds of differences seem way less important when people do not feel they are in competition with each other. It's only when people are scared and insecure that they fight about tribal issues.

Meeting basic needs would take the pressure off which drives System 1 thinking, and allow people to process differences and changes using System 2. It's not just better, it's essential.

It's the culture.

No, it's actually the opposite. The *entire point* of identifying structural and cultural systems of oppression is to change them. Case in point, when feminists popularized use of the term "Ms." in place of Mrs. or Miss. There weren't just millions of people, all individually, personally choosing to name all women by their marital status. It was a practice deeply embedded in the culture, and that is why most people were doing it. Until some women said, that kind of sucks, here's an alternative that works better. And practically overnight, that particular structural and cultural disadvantage was greatly lessened.

Pointing out the oppression in the culture and structure gives way more people a chance to think about it and make more informed choices. The culture then changes.

No, just change that part. Like, cockfighting. It was a negative yet popular cultural thing but you know, most people can learn to live without it and the rest of their culture goes on.

First of all, it's not a matter of "blame." People and cultures are not separate, and change occurs on a bell curve - a few brave individuals dare to move toward important changes, some early adopters join in, then the bulk of people adopt, a few slow adopters remain for awhile, then pretty much everyone is there. People and culture, changing together through the actions of individuals and groups. It's a web of interconnected influences.

Secondly, I tell you that the only reason these cultural issues are looming so large is because the pacts that kept everyone together since the New Deal are breaking down. When everyone is getting a square deal and able to sit back and think for a second, all kinds of differences can be put aside and all kinds of moral progress can be made. Helping people - everyone - will turn down the heat, get System 2 working. There won't be a need for all these tribal threat displays.

Culturally we have far, far more in common than any differences. We just need the space to see it.

Culture is both the seed and the fertile ground this stuff grows in. Just to pick an example at random - it may be true that a guy like Trump is just an "unapologetically lustful" individual asshole who grabs women by the pussy...he's certainly in a class by himself on that. BUT, the fact that 1) he felt comfortable casually sharing this with another dude he knew only professionally, with zero pushback from him, and 2) it was excused and rationalized by millions including his wife as "boy talk", show that it's a *common culture of acceptance* which enables this kind of assault instead of discouraging it.

It's both, because if this was not widely culturally approved there is no way this guy could have been *elected President.*

First of all, the majority of women, up to 97% in some studies, report having experienced sexual harassment. Look at #MeToo. Is that all really the work of just a few bad guys who get around?

Secondly, sexual harassment (or unapologetic lust, or whatever) are not just the work of "bad men." It has often been perpetrated by otherwise good men, especially when the culture glorifies womanizing. And, when people are young and stupid and drinking they do inappropriate things. 43% of males report being sexually harassed too, so it's not just a "male problem," but turn on any TV on Superbowl Sunday and you will see plenty of inappropriate sexualizing created for a broad public audience. Yes, it IS deeply embedded within the culture, but we can all be "good men," or better people, with some awareness of that fact.

I have no way to know, but almost all women experience it. Some one is doing it.

That makes me feel very sad for trans people and for your lesbians.

Yes, it does sound really absolutely insane when you put it like that. But is that really what is happening? Drag caught on, spread and grew organically. Frustrated activists are calling for loud but peaceful protest, as far as Google knows. When you look at what is actually happening, it's not insane at all and it is just people trying to live their authentic selves.

I don't think it's radical fringe trans people who are giving trans people a bad name. I think it is their critics who are exaggerating the change in culture as something sinister, attributing to them the worst possible intentions, and painting it as all really absolutely insane when it isn't.

Perhaps you and your lesbians could take a closer look and be less reactionary.

_______________________________________________________

Are there trans activists calling for violence on social media, Bard? Any at all?

Can you name one or show an example of a trans activist calling for violence?

Okay but without a specific example, how do I know this is really happening? "Calling for violence" could mean anything. What did they actually SAY?

Can you give me the name of a trans activist who is very vocal in their support for violence, so I can look them up?

I'm having a hard time accepting your claim that you know some trans activists who are very vocal about their support for violence. I'd like to confirm this claim independently. Can you link to a place where it happened or provide your source?

Gee, thanks Bard!

Well first of all, yeah. But, there IS such a thing as severity. It's a shade of grey. Trump's document violations appear far more severe than Biden's. I would have no problem with Biden being held fully accountable to the law for his document violations, but it would be fair if it was less severe than Trump's, because Biden cooperated, etc.

Secondly, most people I know feel the same and would be happy to see Biden face the music for his document issues. He's not a cult figure and people do not have to reflexively defend him. Yeah, I voted for him, but it's clear he's in statutory violation. Why would I pretend otherwise?

That's what Trump supporters should do, too.

Do you think the evidence presented is insufficient to support the allegations or the legal arguments are flawed?

Well, maybe. New York has the ability to extend the statute of limitations if the defendant has lived out of state and Trump has been in DC and Florida. I think the real concern is that the "other crimes" are not necessarily crimes in New York statutes but instead are federal crimes, and the legal basis for referring to federal crimes as "other crimes" in state charges is unclear. According to the "rule of lenity" this kind of legal ambiguity is usually found in favor of the defendant. So, this version could fail.

But, Trump is still a piece of shit criminal and he absolutely did everything they say he did. He absolutely obstructed justice at least ten times as described in the Mueller Report; he absolutely tried to extort Zelensky in Ukraine over the phone; he absolutely lied over 30,000 times while in office and lied about the election being stolen and tried to overturn the election and hyped up people to attack the nation's capitol on his behalf and is still trying to do it. His political wins are a loss to the safety and strength of the country.

So, if this indictment is unsupportable and fails, hurray for due process! But his supporters should still stop supporting him because he will continue to break the law and that's bad for the country.

If there are a great many suspicious dog accidents in your custody, with loads of evidence and future much worse dog cruelty trials awaiting...maybe you shouldn't be "barred from getting a dog" but the community should see what kind of a sicko you are and you should not be able to get *elected* dogcatcher.

No, I never said he should be found guilty on this indictment regardless. If it wasn't illegal or the charges don't hold up, I said hurray for due process, remember?

What I am saying is, even if he walks, he 100% had the affair and paid off the porn star and set up his lawyer and did many other horrendous things including *treason.* Voters don't need the justice system to determine whether that happened - it occurred right in front of them. Instead of high-fiving every time Trump evades accountability, his voters should be able to see that he is a scumbag traitor and desert him in droves. Instead, he is getting political support *because* he's a scumbag.

That's not good for our political system.

That is what my husband, Army Ranger and paratrooper who swore to protect this country from all enemies foreign and domestic, calls it. So yeah. He should know.

But let's be honest, does it really take a court of law to determine that Trump is a scumbag? I don't think anyone really disagrees. I think some want the scumbag on their side, to cheat and lie on their behalf. But there is nobody who doesn't know what Trump is by now.

Look it up in the dictionary then.

trea·son
noun
noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons

the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

Many people who are not criminals *yet* but are a couple of tragedies away from losing their minds WOULD be deterred, and then there wouldn't be a gun handy when they do.

The point of stiffer laws is to make it harder. When stuff is illegal it has to be done secretly. You have to know someone sketchy or ask around, and it's much more expensive and risky. You might get caught at several points along the way. That would deter some people. Making guns harder to get would mean that people had fewer of them too. Also ammo more expensive and hard to get, so less gun fetishism. Fewer guns would not solve every problem but it would be better.

As Harpy is happy to explain, machine guns have only been used for crimes 3 times in the last century, because the laws are so very strict. All guns that are as dangerous as machine guns should be regulated as thoroughly as machine guns.

Gun violence in the U.S. is a public health crisis that no other nation faces. It's not just a part of life we must accept - it's a result of our policies. But we're not getting enough in return to justify the cost in lives.

Here is what we should be doing:

1. Re-instate the assault weapons ban and broaden it to include similar weapons which were previously excluded. This prohibits the *manufacture* of these weapons which will greatly reduce their proliferation. Also bans on the commercial manufacture of their ammunition.

2. Require high levels of security clearance and strict regulations on gun ownership, including higher security for larger collections.

3. Direct a national public awareness campaign explaining that law-abiding citizens can still own a gun, but commonsense regulations will reduce gun violence and make them safer than a gun would.

4. Large cash reward gun buybacks, with bigger rewards for more dangerous weapons and ammo. The seized weapons should be destroyed. The aim is to have millions fewer of these weapons in existence. Yes, black markets will still exist for these weapons but they will be much more expensive, hard to find, and easy to track.

5. Large scale criminal justice reform. Our crime problems are not a natural part of life we must accept either. We can greatly reduce crime with fairer economics and better social support, positive police interaction, focused risk policing, and de-escalation intervention. Policing can be super-smart and community-focused instead of the blunt instrument it is now and crime rates would plummet. The psychological urge to protect oneself at all costs would be greatly reduced and this would decrease demand for personal weapons.

It's far from impossible or unreasonable.