You can't be an "intellectual" professional and be woke

         At my Alma Mater, a political organization decided to ask the incredibly biased question of whether the Black Live's Matter movement was good for race relations. The question itself sounds eerily similar to the criticisms levied by a tacit white population against the civil rights movement of the 1960s. However, the fact that neo-liberals are incredibly dense isn't news to me. What shocked me is when a well known social justice activist from my campus, who happened to be the co-founder of the organization, gave a defense of the organization's query. He argues that the mere act of questioning is not in itself harmful to the cause, but instead allows for frank discussion to be had. And part of me wanted to agree with him. As a former collegiate debater, I felt that the sparring matches of logic and evidence often provided a hidden truth talked about afterwards. Debaters, surprisingly enough, agree on quite a bit and the discussions that happened outside of the debate round were often the most illuminating discussions I had ever had the pleasure to listen/take part in. But even I knew that this was wrong.
          The decision for the Michigan Political Union to have a panel without a single representative from the movement was ignorant and disingenuous. Hearty debate occurs when both sides can be aptly represented. Furthermore, the question invites the sort of skepticism bred in the media concerning the movement. The general opinion of America is the movement essentially amounts to a bunch of pissed off black people who need to get over it. And that's putting American opinion mildly. Minority issues, by their very nature, are often misrepresented by organizations that cater to a "general audience." General often can be coded as white, wealthy, and male. The Michigan Political Union should have anticipated that the movement would take their query as a personal attack and instead of attempting to shut the movement out of the discussion, allow them to play an integral part. But it didn't. And in its mind it kept its puritanical approach to debate, when in actuality it reinforced institutional bias that often discredits minority voices simply because they are unpopular and grossly under researched.
        After looking at what I considered to be a gross injustice occurring at the political union, I was even more shocked to see this former activist defend them. As I said before, the debater in me believed in the therapeutic process of debate, but the minority in me knew too well that certain topics needed to be handled with care. The fact that this former activist had little to no criticism for his organization confirmed something I always secretly felt while living in the bubble of elite academia. I am a poser. He is a poser too. If you're living in a posh apartment in Bushwick, occasionally ordering chop cheeses, while also patronizing a wine and cheese bar right next to the bodega, then you're a poser too. Even as minorities, when we become disconnected from the struggles the majority of minorities face, then we begin to value bourgeois principles such as "intellectualism" over our own people. We don't realize that the intellectualism we have been fed subtly subverts our very existence, becoming in a way a new chain by which we are bound.
       I am guilty of this. My writing is often pretentious. I am blessed to work five days a week in a low income neighborhood so all my students and their families humble me and educate me. To all my friends working in Washington, Microsoft or what ever shining corporate tower on a hill, remember you are ignorant. So please save your deification of intellectualism for people like you because the poor do not have time for it. They know truths you are very much ignorant about. 

If you think the election is a situation of Lesser of Two evils, you're an idiot

                    I feel like this has been said a million times, so I won't belabor it.

1. If you think Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both awful choices, you're probably a complete idiot.
         One is at worst, a mediocre choice. The other is completely awful.

2. If you think this because you supported Bernie Sanders, then you're just full of bullshit.

        Stop pretending you know or care about politics. You're probably as committed as the fools who supported Kony 2012.


That is all 

When Savage meets the alt-right

                    This was supposed to be a long rant about how much I hate privileged people. But I'll just make it simple:
I hate privileged people who think they are better because they are privileged. I fill up with schadenfreude when tragedy strikes these sort of individuals. If you think you're an alpha who can pull through anything, I truly hope you get a bat to the knee caps. That's all :D


Note: Tragedy can be awful sad. I'm putting up a hateful front in order to cope with the grossness these people exude. The reality is that if tragedy truly humbled one of these people and I were to deal with them directly, I would probably empathize. Of course if they go right back to their asshole ways, I'll be the one with the bat. 

The difference between Triggering and Toxic

                Trigger warnings are becoming the new thing to hate in the Social Justice community. So much so that even liberals are rising up against them as if they were actually the scourge of the first amendment the right loves to caricature them as. Apparently people who have an instructive knowledge surrounding psychology are also not fans of trigger warnings, seeing that some of them are willing to write heavily charged articles that pass off a series of presuppositions and errant psychology concepts as actual research. I am an adherent defender of trigger warnings, however even I see some cracks in the logic social justice community uses for trigger warnings and how differentiation could easily clear up a lot of misuse that trigger warnings have seen lately.
              First let's ask ourselves what is a trigger warning and why do we have them? Trigger warnings believe it or not have always existed. It's merely the precautionary dealing with a specific topic that allows someone who may have had experiences with the topic to either remove themselves from a potentially harmful situation or brace themselves for a period of vulnerability. Stripping away all the verbiage, it's a friendly heads up that you're going to be talking about something that might be painful for others to hear about. Many have considered it to be an unnecessary barrier to learning, but the reality is that someone who isn't ready to deal with a difficult topic really isn't going to receive the information well if forced to hear it in a compromised position. Furthermore, Trigger warnings do not bar people from receiving difficult information. In fact, one could argue they help people better receive difficult information. In the same way that it's not considered good practice to plunge someone back into their phobia for therapy, forcing someone to discuss rape/abuse/war without any warning is also unhelpful. Remember when there's a death in the family and you made sure not to bring up the person who died to the person that was closest to them? That's you employing the logic of a trigger warning. Eventually you will discuss that person with them, but instead of an awkward mention of their name followed by a fleeting look of despair, hoping that the other person doesn't respond in a volatile manner, you encroach the topic with care. That's what a trigger warning is. It's encroaching a topic with care.
           Hopefully you generally agree with my definition of a Trigger Warning. Now let's talk about what isn't triggering. Racist and sexist comments, especially microaggressions, tend not to be triggering. Now I say this with particular focus on magnitude. Someone discussing with me the overall trend of Puerto Ricans in poverty and ignorantly ascribing blame on Puerto Rico itself, while also absolving the United States of all responsibility is not triggering for me. It's obnoxious. And after minute 1, I get flustered. Minute 2 goes by and I begin to clench my fist. Finally, the person is on the floor with a bewildered look on their face as I begin to shout angrily about how they are ignorant and foolish and yada yada (probably, not, I fight with words and arguments, physical violence is reserved for a select few). The point is that trigger warnings are intended to protect us from a traumatic experience. Someone dropping ignorant bullshit on me is not traumatic. It's annoying. As these annoyances build up, it becomes an experience with a magnitude that could possibly be compared to that of a traumatic experience (honestly at that point the experiences are inextricably different, but let's roll with it). The point is that I don't need a trigger warning for your dumbass vote for Trump post.
        Now you might think that I basically gave carte blanche to all racists out there to post their ignorant shit online. I haven't. You see people who do shit like that are toxic. Toxicity is something we put up with all the time. We can't avoid it. People just like spewing their toxic shit because they're inconsiderate. Toxicity and trigger warnings are similar in that they become an issue when people are inconsiderate. Toxicity is a reality we have to live with. However, that doesn't mean we always need to put up with toxicity. We can always choose to walk away. No trigger warning prevents toxicity, it's just a build up of all the negative things in your life. From a friend who jokingly implies that you're not smart enough to achieve something because you're fat to a waiter who assumes you will tip poorly because you're black, toxic behavior is everywhere. Microaggressions are specific examples of toxic behavior, but an environment itself can be toxic. This is why safe spaces become necessary. If I have to live in an unhealthy environment because people refuse to change, I at least deserve a refuge. The notion that I'm trapping myself in an echo chamber is ridiculous. As I've said in previous posts, you cannot mute oppression, it's the dull hum that permeates through our lives.
       But the trend in the social justice community has been to conflate topics that are triggering and topics that are toxic. I find this to be inappropriate. Trigger warnings exist because they talk about incredibly intense and powerful experiences that could have an adverse affect on someone. Talk of microaggressions and toxicity, while not peaches and cream, do not have the same magnitude. The response someone might have to toxicity might be just as volatile as someone who is triggered, but that's usually due to an unhealthy build up and not a particular painful vein of memory that had been unexpectedly activated. It's important that when we tell someone to fuck off, we're giving them genuine reasons as to why (if you're bothering to explain at all, you don't have to).  When we mischaracterize "toxic" material as triggering, then the perception of trigger warnings being unreasonable becomes affirmed.


An afterword for the assholes. There may be some who read this and take from it that all topics dealing with racism and sexism are not triggering. This is incorrect. For example, and this is a particularly painful history for African Americans (notice how I trigger warned without the TW), discussions surrounding lynching can be triggering for those who have suffered violence due to hate crimes (or violence in general). One experience that I will never forget is when I went to a competition for Model UN and how I was accused of stealing stuff in a room where 4 guys were sleeping. As the only non- white/asian there it became completely clear what the selection criteria for the person's suspicion was. I asked him why he wasn't checking anyone else's area to which he replied " people like you tend to do this sort of thing." I spent the rest of the night on the phone with my father crying. What was even worse was how the higher ups in the organization brushed it off as a "boys will be boys" altercation. The point is that stories that reflect that particular experience might draw a strong and negative response from me. Cautioning me that it might be discussed actually gives me time to gain composure.

Why voting for a third party does not make sense (and when it will)

                       I don't believe people intending to vote for 3rd party candidates are wrong in their desire to do so. Hillary Clinton has proven to be a lackluster candidate, while Donald Trump is well... himself. But the rationale given by 3rd party supporters, especially those who were politically activated by Bernie mania is what frustrates me the most. First, we need to stop romanticizing the vote. There's this false sense of patriotic duty ascribed to voting. While voting in the very first election after years of authoritarian oppression is truly a touching moment, America has been doing this song and dance for over a century now. At this point voting should be second nature to us. In fact the only reason it isn't is because so many people don't do it. So many people don't really care to vote. And there's plenty of research out there that defends the apathetic voter, so I won't get into it. The point is that when you're voting, you're not making some grand statement about your worldviews. In fact, the anonymity of voting exists so people cannot crucify you for what may well be a whimsical decision.
                     So if voting doesn't exist for me to give myself a reach around, then what is the purpose of voting? Well, it's actually quite simple. It's to be a selfish fuck. Ok, maybe that's a bit pessimistic, but the inherent self serving nature of voting is often what is obfuscated by these people claiming to vote based on principles. You don't only vote because you have a set of principles, you vote because someone is going to materialize those principles into actions when they're in office. So to vote effectively one has to ask themselves two questions, the second of which hinges on the answer to the first one. The first question that needs to be asked is: how likely is it that this candidate is going to be elected? While nobody expects you to be a world class statistician, it doesn't require a PHD in political science to realize that America has a 2 party system. Does this bar a 3rd party candidate from winning the presidency? Yes it does. Simply put, the notion that your third party presidential candidate is going to win the election is highly unlikely, making a vote for them purely symbolic. Often this symbolic gesture comes at little to no cost, given that two party systems typically coalesce around the center during general elections. This move to the center makes democrat candidate blah and republican candidate bleh two scoops from the same American themed rainbow sherbet pint. But this election is different. Given the rapid polarization that has occurred in our country, the democrats and republicans are offering vastly different flavors, with the republican flavor not even to be found in a conventional republican icebox (ok this ice cream metaphor is going too far). The point is that a third party voter now might have a critical role to play in determining the political changes that occurs in this country. The two questions I mentioned earlier become critical because what might come as a purely symbolic gesture for you could be the entire repudiation of a portion of the country. Also, if 3rd party voters built a coalition, then in elections like these, candidates would specifically pander to them. Again voting is about achieving results, not grandstanding on a set of values.
                 One might read this and say that I'm basically giving no hope for 3rd party candidates. Often people claim this pessimistic talk of "it's always been this way" only serves to deter the eventual rise of a political movement for a 3rd party candidate. They'll claim that I'm spouting broken logic, which makes it impossible for a 3rd party candidate to win. Well, they're idiots. It shouldn't come as a shock that perhaps the best way to win the highest office in the country is by taking considerable control over smaller offices. Senatorial races and House of Representative seats are far more valuable, practical and essential for the long term success of a political party. If these same fools who are going to go out and vote for Jill Stein made sure to vote and advocate heavily in local, state and congressional elections, then Jill Stein would be a viable candidate. But until then they'll call everyone else sheep, selfishly vote for their third party candidate and then wipe their hands clean when the negative repercussions of which ever candidate they enabled to win finally comes to fruition.

A small defense of the 3rd party folk that they themselves won't admit to. The rampant spending in political elections have made any true grab for power that does not in some way compromise on 3rd party beliefs difficult. However, this line of argument makes it even more pertinent not to vote for 3rd party candidates, but to vote for primary candidates who have a shot of making the political environment more tenable for 3rd party candidates.

Who owns Steven Universe?

           Steven's Universe is my new summer discovery of a show. The show is bold, producing a fantastical plot that is able to explore a variety of identities ranging from body size, race, and sexual orientation. Most importantly, these identities don't feel forced or political, instead they function within the universe to allow the main character to explore the world with a normal that unfortunately isn't normal for most of the people who share the identities of these characters. I love this show and think it should be considered the benchmark for how to produce socially conscious material that's compelling. You would think that a fandom that spawns from this show would be as accepting and open minded as the characters in the show. Unfortunately they aren't. Instead they ridicule anyone who creates art that doesn't remain faithful to their interpretation of the source material. The argument is that the LGBTQ and the non-conforming community and women  have a unique claim to the artistic material. First, thanks white people :D. And also thanks to SU for hardly exploring the racial dimension that exists in the show. But even if we found a person of color who identified with the aforementioned communities, would that person have a pure claim to Steven's Universe? I don't think so. There is only one group that Steven's Universe is for. Kids.
       The thing about Steven's Universe that so many people from so many backgrounds don't get is that it's not about them. It's about the children. These shows are teaching children to have a much broader mind concerning gender, race and sexual orientation. It teaches kids that love cannot be caricatured as gay or straight, but instead is made up of actual interactions. As a bigger guy, it would've been nice seeing a chubby Steven be good enough for his friend Connie. A beautiful mother who also shared his grandiose stature caps off my love of this show. These characters reminded me of my childhood, but provided me with an alternative way to interact with the people in my life. If only I grew up watching this show, but I didn't. And neither did any of you producing all this ridiculous vitriol over a skinny Rose or a white cosplayer dressing as Amethyst.
      In a world connected by the internet, we nerds need to be aware of when we hastily take material intended for kids and make it our own. We have a responsibility to either keep kids from seeing our mature takes of the show or producing material that will not poison the innocence of children with our bickering. I don't think the community is acting irrational, but how far is too far with this behavior? The fact that a girl attempted suicide because of the backlash from a drawing is ridiculous. Perhaps if people took the time out to critique her drawing in a level headed manner, the community would be represented as passionate and thoughtful gatekeepers of the content, not crude bullies. Fortunately for me, my blog is hardly read, so I doubt any of these over zealous fools will shower me with their discontent. But if they do, that's fine. I'm not a young girl. I'm a grown cis-gendered Puerto Rican man and I'm telling you that you don't own Steven's Universe. The children do. 

Real Social Justice: How a sexist man chooses to interact with the world

                 This blogpost was supposed to be a generalized discussion about how sexism makes dating shitty for both men and women. But as I wrote it, I realized that the conclusion from that blogpost would be incredibly boring. Most of us understand how the environment of sexual assault and misogyny could make many women skeptical of advances made by men. And if you don't agree with that reaction, I probably won't convince you otherwise with the post I was intending to write, so go over to this website. I'm sure you'll feel at home there.
               Now that the children have left, let's have some real talk. I messaged a girl on ok cupid (yep, I've been sucked in too, honestly in a city as a working professional it's just really convenient, but wait I don't have to justify my decisions to all of you!). I read her entire profile, as I typically do (some people actually care about that shit), and realize she made a comment about laughing about space hamsters. " Well I'm  a pretty big weirdo and the thought of laughing about space hamsters intrigued me so I messaged her first writing, "What type of space hamsters do you laugh about?" To be completely honest I didn't really expect a message back. While I'm not doing horribly in the reply category, I'm also not being offered free A list status. I expected a no response (which for every bitter asshole out there to hear, is fine, sometimes people don't like you, haven't checked their account, don't like you, were too busy, or perhaps they don't fucking like you). I don't care as there are plenty of fish in the sea, they're just all really hard to catch (seriously if you go fishing, you'll see what I mean).
             So color me surprised when she responded to me accusing me of searching up her twitter name and casually referencing it before even knowing her. Now let's stop for a second. There are definitely guys who do shit like this. Hell even I will facebook stalk/internet check someone out after talking to them for a few hours just to make sure the ole catfish detector ain't ringing off. Her disgust about the assumed lengths I went to message her would definitely be warranted, if it actually happened. Instead turns out I was just mindlessly asking about something she talked about in the profile she wrote for everyone to read to know about her... (confusing right).
           Now let's be clear, I'm an asshole. So immediately I thought she was a fucking idiot. This really has nothing to do with gender. Anyone who knows me, knows that when someone does something stupid, regardless of the setting, I'm quick to call them an idiot. And of course I immediately responded by pointing out where the inspiration for my message came from. But after establishing that I wasn't a weirdo creep, something hit me. Why the fuck do I have to deal with this overreaction? If someone else would do this kind of shit to me, I would rip them a new asshole. And it's not like I know her. The inter webs allows us to be morally reprehensible with the protection of the glass screen. So I began writing this long tirade about how tired I am of being accused of shit I didn't do and how it's typical white girl bullshit to claim this kind of shit. And then I stopped because I realized if I said any of that shit, I'd be acting like a sexist asshole. That girl was not in the right to be a jerk over something that she clearly made public but that reaction isn't because she's an irrational stuck up jerk. It's because so many women get harassed on these kinds of sites and so when ever a guy, especially one that labels himself as a gamer and nerd like I do, messages her with something that just seems too familiar, she immediately becomes suspicious. That reaction, while definitely not deserved, is a product of the environment. To blame her would just add onto the fucked up nature of the system.
         She hasn't messaged back, but maybe she will. Regardless, I'm happier with my decision. Often when we're placed into situations concerning racism or sexism, we find that the inability to empathize with the target identity makes it so that the reaction you give is highly inappropriate and often reaffirms the systems of oppression that person lives in. However, the opposite expectation of immediately checking your privilege is an unrealistic one. The system skews the way we view each other. By acknowledging our frustrations, we become aware of the distortion and are then able to fix it or at least, check ourselves.