The Empirical Manifesto

I’ll admit my finger isn’t often directly over the pulse of current events, but anecdotally speaking - as my diverse feeds are an almost equal mix of highly conservative and highly liberal sources - I will gladly disclose that the Left is not collectively losing their minds over Twitter’s acquisition by Elon Musk, so some of you *may* wish to review where you’re getting your information and ponder, existentially perhaps, why that news source is so keen on making you believe stuff which isn’t true.

In related news it would appear as if the Right believes that somehow Musk’s acquisition of Twitter will usher in either the re-instatement of Trump as President and/or the re-animation of JFK Junior’s corpse. I’m a little less clear on this part. Until next time friends!

I know there is a lot of controversy surrounding mail-in ballots and their susceptibility to to tampering, possibly swaying the upcoming Presidential election. I just wanted you to know that whichever side you're on; whatever you've heard, there is great comfort in knowing only the other party is lying, or omitting facts, or making things up to benefit themselves because your party would not only never do that, they don't even have reason to - they are honest and just want the best for America. All the news articles and statistics from the sites you trust are just giving you the facts, and the articles your friends have shared showing the opposite are fake news from obviously biased sites. I know you have the links to prove to your point. Trust me, you're doing the right thing - believing the right people for the right reason. The other side is out of their goddamn mind trying to peddle blatant falsehoods in order to sway the sheeple. But not you. You're not sheeple. Stay strong friends, and Godspeed.

Republicans and Democrats on my feed mirror, fairly accurately, their collective feelings on Trump; outspoken Republicans rarely (ever?) post fake-news pieces mocking him or critical opinion pieces on what a piece of shit he is, while the outspoken Democrats do so quite frequently.

Likewise, outspoken Democrats rarely post fake-new pieces or photos of Pelosi and AOC mocking their braying horse faces, alcohol consumption habits, prior work experience, ethnicity, sexuality, or some other targeted misogynistic bullshit, while the outspoken Republicans do, rather frequently.

The idea that they have to attack someone's looks (or worse), because they disagree with their politics speaking volumes more about their own character than the person they've attacked notwithstanding, it would seem Trump could theoretically sexually penetrate a male infant on live TV and the subsequent defense of his actions on FOX would generally reflect an agreement of his base that Obama has done far worse. Trump would say (and they would believe) that it Never Happened (fake news). And if CNN played back that heinous, undeniable, same-sex act against a minor, well, CNN would be attacked, not the President. Because CNN.

Why the world works this way is not only beyond the scope of this post, but also way beyond the scope of my own comprehension. Its a horrific example, yet the goalposts have been in such a state of flux since 2016 the things happening in Washington today which would have seemed scandalous six-months ago are all but passe now, a cycle which has repeated itself over and over and over. And given the adage, "A bad Republican is better than a good Democrat" without a definitive point where that line actually blurs, leaves the playing field wide open. If you haven't drawn the line yet, at what point would you? At what point should you?

All this is to say because I am not an outspoken Democrat nor an outspoken Republican, when I make an observation, its not for the purpose of promoting one party over the other, personally attacking your apologist position (though maybe I am if you've so tightly wrapped who you are as a person to a specific ideology)...nevermind I bet that's it.

While I was standing in line at the Kansas caucus, it dawned on me that just like everything else in life, politics are equally as malleable. I have had new experiences over the last 8 years which has modified my worldview. In other words, things which were VERY important to me in my 20s weren't nearly as important to me in my 30s. Subsequently, I find myself chasing entirely different dreams in my 40s. This, I think, is how life is supposed to work. Somewhere along the way, we mature. We self-actualize and stop chasing things and start chasing ideas. In my 30s I had a new car, a big house, got married and had children - those things required providing for. New cars and bigger houses are no longer the focus of my life. What made me immeasurably happy then is different than what makes me immeasurably happy now.

I was standing in line at the Kansas caucus trying to articulate a way to explain that half the people in the United States aren't stupid - despite the low brow mouthpieces whose job it is to polarize an easily manipulated society (things are rarely as simplistic as most people state) when I realized much as I am seeking something different now, everyone else on this planet has their own pursuits of happiness, which understandably differ from my own. Because each of us is in a constant state of flux, and that flux alters our perception of the changing world around us, we're each simply finding that best fit for where we are at any given time.

I know people who support each of the candidates, and I don't think they are stupid, or dumb, or misguided. I think they have fantastic reasons for wanting their candidate to win - and unlike me, they're actually passionate about it. My happiness will not wax or wane one iota upon who actually gets elected, because I have not tied it to any particular outcome. I simply don't care that much and will continue to live the best version of myself no matter the possible obstacles. Its the only thing any of us can do.

Sadly, the endless meme's out there do not reflect this understanding. Each of them try to dichotomously outline why people who don't vote for their candidate are dumb rather than express we are all in different places in our lives, and politics isn't ever universally one thing or another. Our politics do not define us - how we grow and react and change the way we think about the world around us when our experiences differ from one another, does.

There was apparently a recent outrage (another, if I'm to understand the context correctly) of video game women being portrayed with...well, boobs. Inappropriately sized for their frame - and without proper protective coverings for warfare to be sure. Nonetheless, I am far from shocked. Truth is, capitalism - nefarious price fixing and monopolistic endeavors not withstanding - is almost unprecedentedly perfect at self-regulation. Which leaves ourselves the only ones left to blame.

I heard the other day, "I have no idea why they stopped selling the original Volkswagon Beetle." Surprised, I explained it had simply stopped selling in the numbers required to support its production; People had stopped buying it. Because companies are vested in turning a profit, a great deal of effort goes into fabricating or marketing something the public will buy. In the case of the scantily-clad boob warriors, the answer to, "Who keeps purchasing this crap?" is us. We do. And that makes it difficult to justify our outrage as we continue to lay out real money. Each dollar spent is validation to these companies that they are doing something right. We alone are propagating the reinforcement they are making exactly what we wish to buy, which is entirely the point.

Here's a snippet from a timely article concerning Idaho tea-party candidate and Mormon Greg Collett who has his ten [10!] children on Medicaid while protesting government healthcare - "Yes, I participate in government programs of which I adamantly oppose. Am I a hypocrite for participating in programs that I oppose? If it was that simple, and if participation demonstrated support, then of course. But, my reason for participation in government programs often is not directly related to that issue in and of itself, and it certainly does not demonstrate support."

Difference is, in capitalism, participation is support. Want to put these evil misogynist game companies out of business? Stop buying their products. 100% effective in a free-market society. Sadly, the article I read concerning this outrage touched on the real-world impact of "gender imbalance" in which women who played these games appeared to begin objectifying themselves. Now while I don't know much about women objectifying themselves, I do know a video game cannot make anyone do anything - there's bound to be something psychological involved where that's concerned. Nonetheless, while the claim is alarming, there was no mention of how 70-million copies of Shades of Gray is by comparison, harmless escapism.

Subjectively, its difficult to say either point of view is "wrong" especially if its the same group of people praising one while demonizing the other, which awkwardly enough, is often the case. Perhaps the differences are simply nuanced, and we're all enjoying the same thing, albeit in our own individualized way. The prudent thing to do would be to respect other's choice, which immediately allows them to freely reciprocate the same respect.

As a non-linear thinker, I have a difficult time conceptualizing abstract ideas for the purposes of illustration. But when I do, they are very nearly irrefutable. That is, unless it butts up against disbelief. Just as one cannot use logic to prove or disprove the existence of The Almighty, there will be people who do not believe my expanded definitions of more common ideals. And very often in trying to illustrate them, their more simplistic chunks appear contradictory rather than nuanced. Its no wonder I struggle so hard to be understood. My comprehension of abstruse theories of my own creation fascinate me to no end; ideas which I find poignant to everyday living, or more to the point, creating/sustaining success out of each and every day, indefinitely.

Its interesting to inspect that which unearths from a process of critical thinking. One of my weaknesses (strengths) is my inability to apply logic to only a single instance without further applying it across the board. I was once told by a professional psychologist who awkwardly suffered from confirmation bias that the scientific method cannot be applied to everything. Naturally, I disagreed with him.

That same psychologist also ridiculed me for being too esoteric - as if the very underpinnings of psychology were based wholly in the concrete sciences! My point is, while we all understand different things at different levels, I tend to place far less restrictions on even applied concepts, and even less so on the theoretical. But it wasn't always this way with me.

I used to believe in rigid, stovepipe definitions of concepts - believing my societal views absolute - until I experienced them differently, or was faced with something which fell outside the default. Over time, by very slowly absorbing and applying knowledge which differed from my initial beliefs, I now not only experience a much broader spectrum of defining attributes, but by default now reject traditional ideas and their definitions. Why? I have discovered that most everything I believed true was inaccurate. At least from my perspective of experiencing it. Default societal values are nothing more than lowest-common-denominator guidelines. Its when the masses treat these starting points as hard and fast rules that conflict arises.

While I was a young man attending an environmental science academy I was taught many liberal things - things I believed to be true because my instructors were articulate, world-weary adventurous adults. By the time I left home, moved overseas and started experiencing the world firsthand, I found that what I saw and what I was taught were two very different things. It was a very confusing couple of years for me as I worked to reconcile, and unlearn certain truths which had been ingrained in me.

Regardless, what is right for me may or may not be right for someone else. Rigid, stovepiped definitions work very well for those who cannot wrap their head around abstraction - it is therefore not wrong for someone like that to grasp onto those comforts, provided they don't attempt to apply it to what everyone else ought to be doing. My wife surprised me the other day with an idea of considering the "European Method" for an upcoming event. I'll have to admit, I was shocked. I was not raised that way. But I can certainly take new information and apply it to my own life. After a little consideration, I agreed with her assessment. Had I not, it would have been for entirely my own, newly formed reasons.

And don't forget the importance of continually expiring personal baselines! Just because that question was answered once before doesn't mean an adjustment hasn't been made to the filter used to accept the inclusion of new information based on previous experience. Absolutely question it again! Its only when we don't that we become a part of the problem and stop thinking for ourselves.

While its true that one can always find the negative in any outcome, I've discovered that restricting my own actions based on someone else's fear has never enriched my life, and more pointedly, has never actually managed to alleviate those fears. The other day I posted this quote:

There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do.

It got me to thinking it could be far more reaching than the face value indicates. If we do not know why we believe what we believe - question ourselves, our intent, our motivations, the source of our beliefs - if we do not know why we behave the way we behave, there may very well never be happiness because we're operating under false assumptions. The only thing I know for sure - and I apply it to myself only - limiting myself crushes my soul. Like Bell in SyFy's Alphas, I see infinite possibilities in the very air surrounding me able to be limitlessly manipulated.

Sometimes its not about finding happiness, but keeping it.