niomi

I have always thought Sanders was our best chance for beating Trump. Opposites in many ways, both are populist candidates. Trump has since re-arranged the Republicans, and Sanders paved the way for the Squad. This is a lopsided comparison, Sanders pulling dems to the left is less than the extremity of Trump's GOP. But in 2016, each (more) opposed status quo in their parties. Both reflect their constituents desire for less typical representatives from each party.

Fun fact about Sanders many have seem to forgotten: The dude was the senate's longest running independent. He joined the Democrats in 2016 only to run for president. He wasn't even a Democrat until then and this is part of why Democrats resent him and DNC worked against his run. When DNC cheerleaders are mad when some socialists don't want to vote for Biden because that's basically a vote for Trump... fuck you, Sanders in 2016 was our best chance to take votes from Trump. Don't you dare shift the blame or I'll vote Vermin Supreme out of spite.

OK so, we have well established, I am a socialist and biased for Sanders. But making an attempt to think of strategy of opposing Trump only... in a wave of populism, dems running a longtime DNC establishment insider vs Trump is a bad play.

Every general election I try to predict the result. Last time, I said Biden would pick Kamala for VP but they would lose. I still think without the COVID pandemic Biden would have lost. We'd be in the 2nd term of Trump right now.

The pandemic scared people. This fear slows the roll toward disruption. Biden's boringness looks better in these conditions. Normalizing COVID since then is just bad for everyone. But it's also another bad play for Biden. The public has very short memories and forgot Trump told yall to inject bleach.

Perpetually declining economic conditions continues to produce populism and disruption becomes inevitable. But Biden is so boring, he's the guy chosen to make Obama look more boring. (not that Obama didn't end up boring enough all by himself)

But the worst play from Democrats: They're far too optimistic. Underestimating their opponent is one of their primary flaws. Jon Stewart clowned on DNC impotence constantly during his tenure at Daily Show.

2004: Most democrats were sure Kerry would win. Bloomberg actually called it for Kerry and had to backtrack.

Dems in my life had a problem with emphasizing how stupid Bush seemed— a poor speaker and a C student. They were waiting for Bush voters to realize this. But intelligence often serves as window dressing for elitism and classism. So this backfired, dem's attitude in pop culture contributed to Bush's relatability and his wins. They still play into this with Trump, although to be fair, it gets tougher to avoid as Trump says even dumber things.

2016: Democrats didn't think Trump could win the primaries or the general. They did not re-evaluate or take him more seriously when he did win the primary. Every stupid thing Trump said, they acted like it would tank his chance.

Hilary's estimated 85% chance to win is a drastic mistake analyzed endlessly. At the time this prediction was made, I cannot take it seriously. I haven't cared for DNC cheerleader's polls analysis since Kerry.

Trump administration: Democrats were optimistic for Trump's legal problems ending his term as president. 4-8 years later, Trump's legal problems are significant, but not enough to end his running.

FYI, I am voting for Biden. Under duress, holding my nose. This isn't about convincing you not to vote Biden. It's begging the voters and DNC to stop running some of their worst options such as Biden and Hilary. (To be fair, RFK is probably worse than either) But yall can't rely on fear of Trump or Bush being shit forever. It's not sustainable.

...is a 1:6th scale doll, which means she's a 6th the size of a person. Back in the day, there used to be a popular post describing the proportions of Barbie at 1:1 scale. She'd be 7 feet tall with a waist so thin her spine would snap in half. Comments on that post shocked me. Women surprised and relieved to learn Barbie's proportions would be grotesque in flesh. They don't have to live up to the spine-shattering Barbie ideal anymore!

I couldn't believe I was reading. It's almost like you told me they cry themselves to sleep at night because they want a giant Funko pop shaped head. I knew Barbie represented an ideal of thin white feminine beauty. I don't think I understand how real this one doll in particular made that standard seem. Or did it?

So, Barbie movie.

Some time ago, I started seeing a lot of Barbie apologetic in the wild. Posts delving into its history, careerism is feminist, Barbie disrupted baby dolls! Etc. Also posts on some obviously problematic dolls, like the one with inflatable boobs. I believe I saw these posts before indie darling Gerwig announced as director of Barbie. Regardless, around the same time.

I know a lot of people also must have been looking into Barbie history to make topical social media posts anticipating the movie...but I'm conspiracy-brained and 99% sure guerilla marketing occurred to set expectations on issues for Barbie movie to respond to.

Sure, everybody wanted a fun glittery movie and nobody (nobody but me) wanted a dry lecture. but I just don't think lamp-shading of some embarrassing Barbie products gets to the heart of the issue. Why women compare themselves to a doll whose eyes are as wide as her wrists? whose clothing is at least as thick as her fingers?

When I saw the promos of Barbieland sets I really thought her tiny size was going to be plot-relevant. Because in my mind, here's the real apology for Barbie: She's a fucking doll.

I've not been a Barbie fan, but I have liked dolls. She's a fashion doll, a cheap one at that. Her waist sculpt might be grotesquely small, but a tiny and stiff outfit widens her shape. Realistically draping fabric at 1:6 scale would be expensive, delicate, unfit for children. Her rail shape compensates for stiff, thick outfits. Yes, Barbie's bust is a feminine beauty standard, but her wide shoulders and complete lack of hips are not. Barbie is more clothes hanger than humanoid. It's not fair to put standards of flesh on Barbie's plastic sculpt.

I thought a Toy Story approach would be the way to go in the movie. I wanted to see Barbie depressed and peeling stickers off her plastic accessories like Buzz Lightyear. Instead we have a character whose pink car runs on cartoon powers but no engine, and she's afraid of cellulite.

There is also a battle of the sexes going on here. Kens are totally incompetent and superficially welcomed, but underappreciated. Kens don't have their own houses, and how they live is intentionally hand-waived. Barbies are incredibly competent and (except the protagonist) unstressed by running matriarchal DEI utopia.

I think Barbieland's meant to be an inversion of the Real World, but this doesn't quite land with me. In Barbie's Real World Patriarchy, and mutiny it inspires among the Kens in Barbieland, men are totally goofy bumblers. Barbie feels threatened and self-conscious when she arrives in the Real World. But cat-calling and montages of powerful men on horses are the sum of showing Real misogyny.

Actually, a more realistic representation of misogyny is Ken's friend zone arc.

Barbies playing on the pride of Kens to manipulate them, Kens vs Kens whimsical battle scene on the beach, “I'm just Ken” dance number... Barbie trying to let Ken down in their culminating conversation, but Ken takes every show of Barbie's sympathy as an invitation to start making out...dare I say, just more depth in this conflict than Gloria wishing Depressed Barbie into existence with movie magic?

Barbie's scared of cellulite in Barbieland, but in the Real World she loves old ladies, connects to them, and recognizes their beauty. It's a great sentiment, but I don't understand the process she went through to reach it. I've seen memes expressing (what I think is) a similar sentiment that are more believable and moving...

Barbie has reverence for elderly women. But other than sitting at a bus stop or mother who stands still so their daughters can look back at them, there isn't much we're revering about them. Their traits are warmth, realness and wisdom. The movie text says Barbie, by becoming human, no longer lives forever as an ideal. But this message comes from an actual ghost. Elders and ghosts in this film are no less an ideal than Barbie. They are a different ideal, that of motherhood and confidence. They lack any personally defining character development.

So, I would say Barbie's pathos is kind of like Madonna/Whore. Gerwig & Mattel gave us Madonna/Plastic variation...and a matriarchal utopia, wrapped this in an advertisement, and called it feminism disagree if it's even feminist at all.

Lastly, the bumbling Mattel businessmen as characters are only mildly antagonistic. As viewers, we are meant to see the company as being a great sport about this. I assure you the actual Mattel corporation is for real EVIL. They do not believe this film is feminist. They are certainly not missing that Gerwig and fans think it is feminist. They are probably very happy with that contradiction and all the money it makes them.

Comparing teachers to cops

It's the first day of school. I betray myself probably, because I've no respect for nearly anyone who (didn't) teach me. There are so many who were grossly abusive. So many, it was ongoing, just normal. So, I have serious concerns. I know there's improvements since the 90s-2000s. but I don't think those institutional problems just go away by now.

I do try to couch my baggage. In these comments I'm saying that the school is an oppressive system. Mitigating the system, which I know is better, doesn't undo the oppressiveness.

This is basically the reform issue. I do believe in reform. You should try, as an individual, to improve the system within your tiny amount of power. But doing this can actually help that system become a more effective parasite. So I think it's important to complain about the reform, even while you are reforming.

Responding to, “teachers are part of an oppressive system” a teacher says that I'm basically calling ACAB. It's a tough thing to respond to. I am not trying to say that. But there is... a thread, I don't want to say it, but it's there. It's real and painful. Teachers are not ACAB, but also, as authorities that punish, they have some things in common with cops.

The operations of school authority— profiling, punishment and control— there are some similar methods of operation, similar psychological consequences. They're enforcers of rules that often make no sense. They say things like, “because I said so.” React unjustly with behaviorist manipulation, then say, “but these are the consequences of your actions.” Construct rules that stereotype, entrap, enforce professionalism and decorum to a harmful extent.

Sometimes they know it's bad, but wash their hands of it. It's bureaucracy, “nothing I can do” — sometimes they're right, othertimes that's a lie.

The school's a rotting and dangerous system.

Foucalt compares prisons to schools philosophically. This reflects in empirical data, a phenomenon called school to prison pipeline. Like law enforcement, school staff disproportionately punish minorities and disadvantaged people. Their biases are the same.

The data from punishments of cops and teachers are similar. And I believe, for the individuals punished in schools, experience of detentions in school then criminalization by law enforcement, is causal. Children punished unfairly, provoked and punished for defending themselves, are more likely criminalized. These are kids used to unfair accusations. They are victim to stereotype threat, turn to “criminal” behaviors with others who accept them, learn means to defend themselves, and/or illegitimately gain access to what is denied them as punishment. They have to live with double standards which causes resentment. Many of these crimes will be victimless. But at worst, they become cold people who don't feel warmth unless they burn something.

And when I'm trying to touch on this in short, simple, reductive, hopefully nice ways, in public— I made hurtful mistakes.

We understand that when we talk about cops, all cops are bastards. When we talk about white privilege, we mean all who are white have privilege. Every white person's tempted to become bastards with that privilege. But it's not all white people are bastards like it is all cops.

Being white is not a choice, being a cop is a choice. He knows this, about racism. Not all white people are bastards, but it's easier for them to become bastards. Likewise, patriarchy doesn't mean all men are abusers. It means it's easier for them to become abusive. There are structures that enable them to get away with it. This doesn't mean everyone who can chooses to use them. (But most people learn micro-aggression, which must be unlearned.)

School to prison pipeline... is somewhat closer for teachers in culpability than being a man or being white. Like a cop, teaching is a job one can take or leave.

BUT IT IS ALL COPS. The reason why cops are all, it's actually quite hard to explain. I get why it troubles moderates to say all, because in most groups it's so rarely all, even when it is most. It's different for cops who are a military against their own people. They are never drafted, they always choose. That's why being a cop is choosing to take one side of a battle line drawn.

Teaching is a more necessary and benevolent profession in its ideal. They aren't military, and hopefully will not become it. (although extremists provoke, perhaps trying to make that happen.) Therefore, that choice of profession isn't a battle line. However, the collaboration of some schools with cops is foreboding. That line approaches us. It arrives when cops are posted in schools.

So it troubles me when I wonder how teachers can cope in such an abusive system. This teacher returns to staff the system he admits still gives him nightmares. This year, posts remind me, how my teachers yelled at kids who for some reason aren't supposed to be socializing while standing idle in a line.

I think other teachers are trying their best but responding poorly to the power struggle. These kids who have wounds of unfair treatment learn to be aggressive. This wounds a new teacher immediately. I think the major shortage shows that teachers mostly don't cope, they leave.

I just teachers are sort of... middle managers, maybe. Either benevolent or tyrannical, the manager and teacher both must control subordinates. It's just naturally an opportunistic position for petty tyrants.

Basically any kind of caring profession subjects us to accumulated apathy and bias. It's not that they're all just as much bastards as cops. It's the self-reproducing system producing a population that surveils itself and others. It provokes us to punish others, kinda doing part of the cop job for them.

I imagine the hope is maybe something like, a teacher punishes children for being loud. If their obedience is reinforced many times, they're trained to avoid a loud party, which would attract cops. (If they have that control over their environment.) This is protective as it is cruel.

These control operations are a replicating system. In the traditional nuclear family structure, this looks like: Boss yells at Dad, Dad takes it out on Mom. Mom passes this shit onto their kid, and sometimes uses Dad for “bad cop” as in, “just wait until your father gets home.” Kids bully their siblings and finally, the pets/animals are the bottom of the hierarchy. All this rage and unfair treatment ripples from families, to schools, jobs, governments. Teachers are just at nasty intersection of those ripples.

Of course you don't want to be lumped in. But lump uses you!

I hope this makes sense, I really don't want the cop/teacher comparison to stand unexplained.

Revised to plug this video with a relevant section on Mr. Beast The Rich Have Their Own Ethics: Effective Altruism & the Crypto Crash (ft. F1nn5ter)

I don't have a problem with Mr. Beast's video on cataracts surgery.

I had never heard of this man until recently. I watch a lot of Youtube. I had a whole time on there without getting served or noticing a Mr. Beast video. I'm asked my opinion and having no idea what to say, I did some looking into Mr. Beast. I have learned it's impossible to overstate how big he is on Youtube. He's the biggest.

Also noticed lots of complaints about Mr. Beast's mastery of spamming the algorithm. But in spite of being the biggest, I doubt the algorithm serves Mr. Beast to anyone not already watching some thematically adjacent video.

If you doubt this, think again. If you're watching, it's for you.

Philanthropy is for arbitrarily chosen benefactors. Many “free market” enthusiasts see private charity as a best path to solve social issues. And they'd be wrong. Mr. Beast may agree with me somewhat. At least, for the specific scenario of Medicare for All.

He says something like: many blind people are curable, why doesn't the government do something about this?

So I don't think he's claiming to be a real solution for the general public.

Maybe the issue is not the cataracts surgery video itself, but the big picture for Mr. Beast. I can definitely see why people have problem with his other videos. If his fans go stay within some circle on the ground in a 50 degree studio for a week and a half... all because they want a prize and senpai to notice them...yeah, it's concerning. it's culty.

It's money porn and exploitative of proles who want money and glory. Even with no participants, it exploits the audience of temporarily embarrassed millionaires.

These are fundamentally the same issues found in game-show & reality TV.

In another video, he offers to give his mother a large sum of money and comes across entirely self-serving.

When she refuses he says: “If you don't take it, I don't have a viral video.” Again, classic ethic problem of charity.

I don't think I have a problem unless the reality of the situation is incredibly destructive. IE, the salvation army has an undeserved reputation for many reasons. They will take credit when they didn't show. For needy LGBTQ people they will refuse or withhold aid to manipulate and shame. They are too pushy with their religious evangelizing. Lots of well-respected private charities are incredibly corrupt, often in worse ways.

If Mr. Beast can be self-aggrandizing but non-hostile to charity recipients, I'm cautiously ok with the motive. There are worse places to go with his ego. Maybe the cataracts video is his inclination to grow up. But he won't fix the system that built him, for sure. Capitalism will never allow the proletariat enough capital to significantly free them. These arbitrary benefactors on screen give viewers the hope senpai may pick them next, but that won't happen.

Charity encourages faith in the very small chances of upward mobility. In that light, it's hard to accept any break for any prole as anything more than a perpetuation of false hopes. But at the same time, for the thousands who can now see, good for them. The situation is contradictory and hopelessly fucked.

I think some of this has to do with resentment for influencers entirely. I'm not against influencing. Sometimes it's journalism, other times entertainment, in my case I like to see both. Some are not doing anything more important than just sharing their own life. Barring deceptive and harmful recommendations, I don't have a problem with it. Disdain for some popular vlog and their audience often seems merely reactionary.

Most Youtubers are not rich. They have day jobs, student loans, or live in somebody's basement. Mostly struggle with severe promoting I find repellent, self defeating and sad. As a group, there's no reason to resent instead of pity them.

Like other performing/arts, the public harbors a false survivorship bias. They look at rich influencers only. They should spare the rage for influencers in particular and turn it toward all rich people. Probably focus on billionaires more than millionaires, but some rage for millionaires too. Just as a treat.

Gamers looking at childhood games as an adult might think nostalgia remembers games looking better than they are. But they actually did look better then, and can still— on the displays the game's meant for.

On a modern screen, you can see an old game pixel-by-pixel, but this isn't the case on a CRT.

For examples: see Retro Games Really Did Look Better Back In The Day

There are many reasons not to use a tube TV. They are heavy, fragile, and can be dangerous if violently damaged. Do not pick one bigger than you can handle and risk dropping it!! They are hungry for electricity, and can keep a big charge[^1] even while powered off. And the air pressure situation due to the vacuum in the tube makes it extra explodey if busted on impact.

Also, it's important to keep magnets and most speakers away from a CRT. This will hurt your display. Mild damage can be repaired by degaussing, but too much can permanently damage it.

I warn against shipping these due to expense and fragility. Check out local marketplaces for pickups: facebook, craigslist, etc. You will find something. If you're looking for something special, be willing to make a day trip. Gas will probably still be cheaper than shipping ;) Even if you are personally willing to take the shipping risk, please reconsider, the supply of CRTs is finite.

Since they are so heavy, I'd go as small as you are comfortable viewing. Mine is 13” and I can carry it under one arm. The 32” we plucked from the curb was so tough for two people. It didn't work for long, and it's taking up a shit ton of space because getting it out will be harder than getting it in; I have regrets.

When CRTs stop functioning, it is NOT responsible to just put it on the curb. I know it's not realistic to dispose everything responsibly all the time. These can become hazards if knocked around so it's extra important to do so, you just gotta. Unfortunately, a lot of e-waste drop-off spots won't take them, for the same reasons they should. You might have to drive it personally to a solid waste authority.

But, if your broken TV is highly sought after, someone may gladly pick it up to have it fixed. (you can list it for pickup like this: nonworking TV for parts/recapping)

If you're not up for all this, some emulators use graphics to re-create the CRT effect.

---

[^1]: this is partly responsible for many of the unique old TV sounds... and the intense static attraction quickly pulling in dust and animal hairs.

---

HELPFUL INFO FOR SELECTING YOUR SCREEN: You don't have to worry about getting the best tube you can find. Any random tube set will be better than today's normal screens.

It can all be adapted, but it's best to choose a TV with the right inputs for your console— RCA is rarely best, but will work in most but not all situations.

Inputs from best quality, decreasing:

• Composite, the last hurrah for analog video cables, these are red green and blue for video. With red & white for audio, total 5. A great picture with composite inputs is the best CRT you can ask for.

• S-video, a better alternative at a time dominated by component, more likely to be found on TVs starting mid-90s. Hard to describe, but resembles the round parallel ports used for peripherals before USB.

• Component/RCA: yellow for video, red & white for audio. Probably the most likely output/input you'll run into, by the 90s these are on nearly everything.

• RF: looks like a cable jack. The only input you can count on in older TVs. Consoles after the 16 bit era (~90s) will require an RF modulator. This is a separate box to take your other outputs (probably composite/RCA) and output RF. New RF modulators might attempt to upscale, but vintage Radioshack boxes are inexpensive.

BRANDS

Obviously, picture quality is more important than brand, but brand is a start. It's best to look up the model, too, but if you're going by a picture from somebody's garage this might not be an option. VERY rough guide (in USA) of notable brands, with better on top:

• Sony Trinitron: you will probably have to pay a lot for this, if not, grab it immediately.
• JVC: before 2000 generally better, still many good ones after that.
• Panasonic
• Toshiba: best before 2001, still not bad after.
• Phillips/Magnavox: better before and after late 90s.
• Hitatchi: great in late 80s.

Detailed Guide for individual models & more brands

Computer monitors can also be a great option. They are harder to find, but will have better pictures (and be smaller) on average. They can connect to a TV console with some know-how. Be sure to get informed on PC input types (which I have not covered) and how to convert them to your console's outputs. Or build a retro PC too, for a bigger challenge and bigger flex in vintage collecting.

TEST YOUR CRT, IF YOU CAN

If you can, bring your console/s along and make sure it looks great before buying. If you have a flash cart, you can run a CRT test suite.

RELEVANT VIDEO When Worse Graphics Are Actually BETTER

---

I know the hotline helps. Lots of positive testimony already, so I’m not covering it, but I am aware. And the truth is it still makes me angry. My big problem is: the Hotline is the bottom of the barrel for help

So here's a story...in international communities online, I’m asked to help someone’s American friend. eg: LGBT youth abandoned, someone impoverished & needing medical care, BIPOC and trans victims of violence.

What I'm about to describe is typical for all kinds of “assistance.” But I'll use an LGBT youth housing program as an example.

I am not well equipped to help people outside my geographical & personal network. Very few of the netizens who need help happen to be near me. I do know USian jargon, so I try Google for my overseas contact's American friend. On clearnet it’s mostly state-enabled programs.

Google listings are a bit behind the live page. I click on a listing for a housing program that says “here’s where to walk in” or “how to schedule an appointment” or “who to call for assistance”...

but the only information on the live page is that goddamned suicide hotline.

It's so common.

Maybe it’s defunded since Google made the listing; or it’s full, or only operates sometimes, or NIMBYs kicked the house out of their neighborhood so it’s trying to find a new place to go…

Typically, no such explanation for why the program has ghosted. So I asked a local reddit and I found out they only run this housing program in summer. Then why not also, “try again in a couple of months!” on their page?

So the LGBTQ+ teen can call the number and talk about how being houseless makes them sad. This teen has nothing but what they carry and a stranger who will never speak to them again. If they get beaten, trafficked, or killed, this volunteer will never know. And the volunteer says things like, “life is worth living!”

Life is worth it, even when your family has abandoned you. and your socks are wet and cold with no way to clean or dry them. and your tent & items you need get stolen and swept by cops. When all this brings you to the edge, the number will talk you down and insist you stay alive. A housing program is only there for the summer, but talk is here for you all year.

I get that talk can be helpful but it's also cheap. The hotline won't claim it’s a substitute for a house, and yet…in a case like this, I think: thanks for nothing.

A few more points in less detail:

• The volunteers try to manage different types of resources, but are ill-informed. Imagine the lost LGBTQ+ youth calls the hotline posted in place of a housing program. But volunteer recommends that same defunct program that refers back to hotline. Over and over I’ve watched the line provide friends or family a full list of 100% runarounds and dead ends.

• the suicide hotline understaffs with volunteers. Before 988, already a third of calls dropped before they get through.

• If the text crisis line doesn’t become a shitty customer service robot, I will eat my entire hat. Already, shitty robots are running a text equivalent to triage. These robots are capable of summoning interventions and police without any human oversight. Then the hotline sells user data to private companies who develop customer service chatbots.

• Volunteers talk vulnerable callers into calling emergency services including cops. They can arbitrarily decide to summon cops themselves. These “emergency services” are dangerous. Promotions for the hotline say, “you don’t have to be suicidal, call for any reason, just to talk!” but non-suicidal callers still risk getting wellness checks that can go bad.

• Hotlines increase psych hospitalizations which might seem like a good thing. Callers should have access to hospital care, if they need it. Yet non-suicidal people get trapped all the time, wondering what the fuck happened. The truth is, some volunteers overreach wrongly. Any depressed person expressing hopelessness is at risk of detainment. Involuntary holds are used disproportionately against minorities such as (but not limited to) nonwhite, non-men, and queer people.

• Actual talk therapists are on short supply. Especially long lines for therapists accessible to people in poverty. New therapists have the shortest wait for appointments and I thank them for their service, but damn. With the hotline, we are instead doing therapy by call center which is terrible.

• Recently, we got a final nail in the coffin for imbalance theory in SSRIs. This is just one more data point for the big picture: mental illness is not mere biological error. Maybe it’s not even very much of that. Our environment & society is making us sick. But treatment is too personal to actually put a dent in growing and widespread despair.

2025 Update on imbalance theory: This theory is not so dead as it seemed when I wrote this, but my point stands in that many mental illnesses are casualties of capitalism.

In summary, “reach out for help” or “find someone to talk to,” etc is secular thoughts and prayers. This is not suicide prevention. It is suicide delay.

Suicide prevention is access to food, homes, medication, education, transportation, and more. Without material and community support, people will die. That’s just the way it is. The sooner we act on that, the better. But the hotline expanded while social welfare is at a crisis level is insult to injury.

Depending on context I will use different labels, which can be confusing! So here's a handy reference.

GENDER

• pronouns: not important to me; You may use any.

• agender: it means I have no gender at all; more specific than nonbinary.

• nonbinary: a person not of binary genders. this is a more general/umbrella term than agender.

ORIENTATION

• polyamorous: I do not do sexual, emotional, or romantic exclusivity. I will take more than one partner and only choose partners who are well-adjusted to that idea. FYI, this being an orientation is somewhat contentious, but I consider it so.

• bisexual: attraction to at least 2 genders and possibly more. It's the original description I chose for myself as a teen.

• pansexual: similar to bisexual but slightly different implications/nuances.

Although I use *sexual labels because they are more widely understood and close enough, technically I experience no sexual attraction to anyone ever.

• asexual: or ace for short. Describes, more or less, a lack of sexual attraction to others.

MORE ACESPEC VOCAB

• acespec: short for “asexual spectrum”

• allosexual: a helpful contrast to the designation of asexual. If you're not asexual like me, you're allosexual.

This is a tough subject for me to cover because not only does the discussion contain a lot of conflict, but in my opinion… the difference between bisexuality and pansexuality is (drumroll) NOT A LOT. The differences are real but there are more similarities than differences. They are not mutually exclusive so I consider myself to be both.

If you know someone who prefers one and not the other, the difference matters to them. And the ultimate answer is, if you really want to know, you must never stop asking individuals what it means to them. There are caveats to the general imperative that we must trust people are what they say they are, because if (for example) you’re talking to a pan who says bis are trans-phobic or a bi that says pans are biphobic, that’s a real problem.

So let’s get into the root of this conflict where we can try to precisely define these terms while also explaining some misunderstandings. In a climate where activists are fighting the cultural hegemony of male/female gender binary, ignorant people will see “bisexual” and assume that means gender binary. The root of binary employed in both terms makes this misunderstanding inevitable.

What many don’t know is that the oldest and officialist bi-led organizations have been making their best and most sincere push for a gender-inclusive definition of bisexuality since the 90s. According to them, the binary in bisexual is: genders that are the same as yours, but also genders that are different than yours. Therefore, bisexuality has always included all trans and gender non-conforming people.

Because “the same and different, relative to the individual” as buckets for gender does not seem as quite so accessible as the obvious pitfall-buckets of “male and female”, enters the belief that bisexuality is trans-phobic.

But, just inhabit this binary-related misunderstanding of bisexuality for a second, and note that this misunderstanding STILL by definition includes trans people who are men and women. Why do they assume bisexuals do not include transmen and transwomen who are just as much men and women as cismen and ciswomen? There a big chance for a biphobic individual also projecting their own transphobia. We may even find such a person aboard a fucking choo-choo train of infinite phobias. Thus, if you pick a label in reaction to the other being less inclusive, you are ignorant and possibly telling on yourself.

In my humble opinion (and my opinion is the best source, obviously) I really think “attracted to people of genders (plural)” is a simple, good-enough working definition of bisexuality. Although the more technically precise term for what I just described as “good working definition of bisexuality,” probably is polysexual. Are you confused yet?

Pansexual, strictly, means attraction to ALL. I would say, attracted to any gender and/or all. All, (more or less).

There are reactionary pans who prefer to be called pan to express they are attracted regardless of gender. Attraction regardless is valid, but something that can apply to bis, too. So regardless can be real, can be a dog-whistle for phobia, as in “regardless of gender, unlike those other gender-superficial-sexuals!!”

Pans who believe bisexuals are, in contrast to them, attracted to genders first and people second… and pans who believe all bisexuals are trans-phobic… they do exist, and those pans are NOT COOL. Bisexuals who believe that all pans are biphobic reactionaries, those bis are NOT COOL EITHER. If you have believed this stuff, it’s OK! Now you know.

What I think we are moving toward is a convention where we have lots of prefixes-sexualities, some of them are more obscure, others are more popular. This is how language works!! Gatekeepers are intimidated by that. Get over it.

If the school made good on their threats to jail my parents for my truancy, I could have been a Midwestern example of the “school to prison pipeline”. This is what Kamala is famous for in California. She got working class people on things like truancy and possession at a time & place when small amounts of marijuana was a felony. A Californian prototype of the prosecution that puts so many POC behind bars. If they are captured alive.

Although Kamala herself slammed Biden on his old timey support of segregation.... a hollow appearance of racial progress without any follow through is a reason picking her as his running mate is tactically sound. Both Kamala & Biden are actually natural allies on policy– Both ran “tough on crime” 90s campaigns aimed at swinging Reaganites. Public support for the draconian anti-crime measures depend on racism and white supremacy.

The Clintons also did this. They have admitted the codes used, resentment of super-predators, thugs and welfare queens, were a mistake. Clintons have been consistent with their apology for this in recent years; Biden flip-flops as if he’s just caving to pressure.

During the health insurance debates, we saw Biden pander to liberals who are afraid of change. Ironically, these people he panders to are nostalgic for the Obama admin– remember “hope” and “change”?

Kamala’s biggest contribution to the ticket will be her quick wit and powerful stage presence. If they do it right, this should make goofy Biden look better. (It could backfire and make him look worse, which racists will capitalize on when they release racist propaganda.)

The working class is too suppressed to vote in a leftist president. Despite a great demand. Being overworked & underpaid (thus little time/planning to get to polls), gerrymandering, voter ID, suppresses democratic process. If the DNC were not so biased toward the status quo and open to reform we may have made Bernie happen.

I think this election is going to come down to GWB era republicans who are grossed out by Trump’s extremism and superficiality. Polling shows that Republicans are very supportive of Trump as a group. It’s going to be a tough ask to bring Repubs alienated by their party out to the polls, but if there are enough of them Biden will win.

Despite my complaints I’m voting for Biden/Harris. But the reason for the complaints are that the odds are stacked against this ticket. Trump is more likely to win. He has a very strong base who truly love him. Whereas democrats are conflicted & tone deaf. Like Romney in 2012, we have a candidate so very bland at best, nobody is going to bother voting except the people who always vote.

I hope I’m wrong. But I’m getting my tubes tied before Trump continues to attack health care & planned parenthood.