Invisible Ableism

Greetings,

There are going to be some people who have looked at the title of this article and gone, "What? How can ableism be invisible?" I could simply respond and say the same way that disability can be invisible and that would almost be as accurate as I could get. It becomes invisible when it becomes normalised, as you will see below...

How invisible is ableism? When a person with disabilities does not notice an aspect of ableism in an activity they have been participating in for years. It qualifies as invisible.

For many the attaining of a driver's licence is a simple rite of passage. Lessons often begin toward the end of high/secondary school and continue onward until the tests are completed and the licence is attained. This is not the same for all of us. Possessing a driver's licence is a privilege, a privilege that some of us do not have, sometimes by choice, other times because disabilities disallow us.

Anything that can be taken away is a privilege. Re-read that again (no not bad grammar, do it twice) and have a good think about it. There are some of us who do not realise just how privileged we really are. However, that is a subject for another discussion. For now, we will recognise that a driver's licence is a privilege denied to some due to their disabilities. So, it means every adult in the world does not possess one, even in modern societies where such things are prevalent, and relatively common.

I never thought much of this particular issue until recently. My 18+ Card served as photographic identification (ID), usually sufficing for most things. I have since found somethings where a driver's licence is required as primary ID, where the 18+ Card is not enough. Here, we can see aspects of discrimination and ableism.

However, it was not until very recently that I realised just how prevalent this ableism, based on assumption or ignorance, was present in our lives. I have participated in fencing in a social group since the mid-1990s, am very well-known for it, and have had no reports of safety issues or other issues, at least that have been brought to my attention.

The most recent draft of the rules of this social group in one section states, "If you are not fit to drive, you are not fit to fight!" But I have never been fit to drive in my entire fencing career, and never will be. Taking this rule literally, my fencing career is over at the publication of this set of rules; or some pedantic rules lawyer could read it like that at some tournament in the future.

The statement in the rules is supposed to be a guideline for people, however it exposes a level of expectation certain people with disabilities, such as myself, cannot, and will not, ever meet. I know it is not the intention of the rule to be read like this. The purpose is to set a "known standard" for people to follow, however, this standard is ableist, and is possibly discriminatory due to its potential implications, i.e., is there a hidden requirement that a fencer also possesses a driver's licence?

I have identified this statement not to demand an apology or some sort of recognition. No, I have identified it merely to show the invisible ableism that even well-known (at least within my community) disability advocates such as myself have missed until recently. We all need to stop and examine such things in our lives to see if there are hidden aspects of ableism or discrimination present.

The purpose here is not to vilify, but to educate. To recognise these aspects are present, that we all need to improve, even the people who are most affected by the discrimination based on such concepts. If we, as people with disabilities, can't work together to remove such aspects from our lives, what hope do other people have if they don't have our perspective? 

The issue reveal one of the reasons that such issues need to be discussed with people with disabilities involved in the conversation, as has been said "Not about us, without us." Further, that we all need to look in the mirror and examine what issues may be invisible to us, because they have become normalised, just as a process of our lives.

Cheers,

Henry.

Let's Talk About Words...

 Greetings,

Some will ask why this is not in my Olde Wordes blog, you will be given that answer in the not too distant future. In some ways it really should be in that blog as this has been forgotten and has been relegated to a part of our language's history. This all being said, I am likely to make myself unpopular with some of my readers, though this blog doesn't get particularly many of those. In any case, I hope that you will bear with me until the end...

I will state that political correctness as a concept is a good idea, we should be concerned with how we address people, and be concerned for other's feelings, but there is a point at which this becomes ridiculous. I have spoken about the difficulties of being a gentleman in this modern age. I am a humanist, which means I believe in the true equality of every human to live a happy life, doing what they enjoy so long as it does not impinge on the happiness of another human being. I believe that everyone can be better, and I strive to be so.

I do not want to turn back the system. No, I want people to be treated equally, as human beings. To be given what they need, as human beings. I do not care for divisions of race, nor religion, nor culture, nor ethnicity, nor sexuality, nor gender, nor ability; such differences are simply the definitions of human diversity, and we must appreciate them all. With that all said, let's talk about a word...

To be precise, let's talk about part of a word, a suffix no less, that being, "-man." (Yes, I know I have stepped into hot water already.) Some would have this removed entirely, some would have all instances changed to "-person" to make it genderless. 

I say that the word is already genderless, just like in the word "human", one of my favourite words.

The Latin root of "-man-" has nothing to do with gender, in fact it has nothing even to do with an individual. The Latin root meaning is "hand". This is where we get words like "manual", "manage" and "manufacture", among many other words. This Latin root then links to the suffix "-man" because it is the hand performs the operation, that performs tasks.

The suffix "-man" means "person who operates, performs, or does something" this means that the "-man" in all these words is already genderless, there is no reason to change it.

(For your reference: https://www.wordreference.com/definition/man)

In my opinion, the changing of "-man" to "-person" and other such changes is a "knee-jerk" reaction to the presence of the word "man" being present, which offends some people who are looking to be offended. These people will claim that the presence of such words perpetuates the patriarchy which has perpetuated through history. I think it is a result of people being over-zealous about the language without understanding the origins of the language, without understanding its history.

The same knee-jerk reactions can be seen across language where language has been softened to lessen its impact against groups. We could examine the progression of "shell-shock" to "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" as an example; I have already spoken about language regarding disabilities. Many of these changes have been done without consultation of the individuals who will be affected by these changes, then backed by "politically-astute" or "politically-conscious" individuals so they pass through community requirements so they become accepted.

The more we consciously divide humanity, and continue to do so, the more these rifts will appear. The more these rifts appear, the more people will use these rifts will be used against us to keep us separated. While we are all being kept separated, distracted by the spelling and pronunciation of words, or how they are used, real changes are being affected in our world. Some of these changes we cannot undo once they are done.

Who benefits from people being separated by religion? Who benefits from people being separated by race? Who benefits from being being separated by gender? Who benefits from people being separated by disability? These are the questions that need to be answered, not about the differences. The differences are what make us special, they create the diversity in humanity, and are our strength. They allow us to see the world from different perspectives; if we can only see how we can work together, we might be able to solve the important problems in the world, problems facing humanity. Not problems facing one division of humanity.

Cheers,

Henry.

The Problem

Greetings,

A short post, some thoughts on some problems in society, and what I think the the real problems are in fact. Behind every surface problem there is a real problem to be solved. Like a symptom, there is a cause, we need to attack the cause to remove the symptom completely... 

The Problem

The problem is not crime; the problem is poverty.

The problem is not poverty; the problem is greed.

The problem is not politics; the problem is greed.

The problem is not legality or policing; the problem is criminality.

The problem is not criminality; the problem is safety and respect.

The problem is not race; the problem is poverty. 

The problem is not race; the problem is diversity

The problem is not religion; the problem is extremism.

The problem is not gender, sexuality; the problem is acceptance.

The problem is not disability; the problem is inclusivity and diversity.

The problem is not race, or gender, or sexuality, or religion, or disability; the problem is respect.

The problem is not race, or gender, or sexuality, or religion, or disability; the problem is equity.

The real problem is a lack of humanity.

I was going to give an explanation for each of these points, but I think this is enough.

Cheers,

Henry.

A Question for "Alpha Males": Where is Your Pack

Greetings,

I am going to speak on a particular social issue and I am going to get hammered from certain parts of our community for writing it. However, this is one of those things that needs to be written, needs to be sent out there, needs to be said. This is something that needs to be corrected in people's thinking of the way the world works.

Why does an "Alpha Male" need a pack?

Simply because without a pack you are a "lone wolf" and contrary to all the cinema and stereo-types which have been created, the surviving "lone wolf" is the exception to the rule. Mostly "lone wolves" die, because they don't have a pack, "lone wolves had a significantly higher mortality than members of packs and pairs." They become lone for a reason, rejected by a pack. This is proven through more studies than just this one.  Oh, and "lone wolves," are exactly that lone, a pack of "lone wolves" is an oxymoron.

What Makes an "Alpha Male" in a pack?

The "alpha male" in the pack is the biggest, it is also the strongest, and so forth. However, even the concept of the "alpha male" has been proven to be false. For the purposes of the discussion and because the concept seems to pervade our society, or at least parts of it we will use it.

The "alpha male" is a leader. Yes, they are strong and they make decisions. They also care for the rest of the pack, they also defend the weaker members of their pack from attack. They do not go out and seek to harm members of their pack as this is counter-productive, as the pack must work together to survive. The "alpha male" will go out of its way to ensure that more of its members survive because this is to its advantage.

Watch this video for wolves in the wild, yes a pack of them. Watch how they follow one another, sticking together for the benefit of the pack. Working for the benefit of the whole rather than the individual.

What does all this mean?

There needs to be a correction in our idea of the so-called "alpha male" if we are going to continue to use this concept in a social sense (even thought the original concept is false). It needs to be recognised for what it originally was the leader of the pack. A one who worked for the group, who worked to the benefit of the group rather than themselves.

If you're big, strong and dominant, but you're not a leader, and you are not working toward the improvement of a group, seeking to improve the lives of others, you are no "alpha male." You're a "lone wolf" and your destiny is to be shut out, because "lone wolves" are removed from the pack for a reason. They have no use to the pack, the pack always comes first.

Real strong people are those who put other's needs before their own, because they can. They have the strength and resources to do so, so they do so. Not because they are told to, or because they are required but because that is the way things are done. This modern "alpha male" concept needs to be either reconstructed or removed, corrected to what a pack leader does or simply eliminated, because it does no good for society as a whole as it is currently.

Next time you are told someone is an "alpha male," ask the where their pack is, and if they don't have one, it's just an ego-trip to fill in some hole in their personality...

Cheers,

Henry.

"White People": A Racial Slur

 Greetings,

There has been quite a bit of conversation, especially over the past years, about people identifying as one nation or another, identifying with their "roots" especially. There has been identification of "First Nations" people, within the boundaries of various current national boundaries. However, when it comes to "white people," they are overlooked. 

In fact, I would state that "white people" in itself is a racial slur. Why? If you examine all of the "white people" within a national boundary these days, you will find many different cultures and many different languages. It is important to recognise the original inhabitants even if they were white as well. Further, it is important to recognise that due to immigration you will often find a lot of different cultures within a national boundary, even if they are all "white."

This term, "white people" is offensive in the same way as any other generalisation of culture is offensive. It is merely not recognised by most because "white people" are the dominant, "white people" were the "conquerors" and "settlers." This is primarily used as a slur to categorise negative attributes or actions, either historical or current, which are being implied, what needs to be recognised is not all "white people" are committing these offences. There are all sorts of "white people." Then again, the same applies to "black people."

We should not say "black people" in the same way, for the same reasons. Under the heading of "black people" there are people of African descent, people of Pacific Island descent, and people of Australian indigenous descent, and likely others. They all certainly do not have the same cultures, as they did not live under the same environmental conditions, and they did not develop the same way. Categorisation by colour of skin, shape of face (Caucasian, Negro, etc.), all of these things may be biologically possible and tell us something about our roots, and common roots, in prehistory, but they should not be used to generally categorise people in a socio-cultural sense. Wouldn't it be nice if we were just all "people," without the necessity of the socio-cultural tags?  

There are discussions of "cultural appropriation" in regard to certain cultures. "Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unacknowledged adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation) There seems to be a lot of regard and concern for some cultures and not others. It would seem that European cultures "white" cultures are ignored when it comes to this, because they are the "dominant culture," but offense can still remain. We need to be careful about how we deal with all cultures, regardless of where they originate, regardless of their time period, regardless if they are "dominant" or not. We need to be respectful of all cultures and how we present them.

Now, there are those who are going to claim that I am some sort of "white supremacist" or "Nazi" for making the statements that I have (likely, because I will be classified as "white"), and I consider these individuals foolish beyond words. To them, you have missed the point of what I have been saying. I am a firm believer in levelling the playing field in all aspects. The same care should be taken with all people and all cultures, regardless of the colour of their skin, nation's origin, or religious beliefs.

Maybe I should've changed the title to: Why can't we all just be "people"?

I apply the same to gender and sexual orientation for that matter. Care needs to be taken how we address one another as individuals, and as groups, even how we think about one another.

We need to begin to understand one another so we can begin to heal. This is the way forward. Hopefully then we can begin to see ourselves as "humanity" and work toward a better world.

Cheers,

Henry.

Written Within the Pages

 Greetings,

If you do not read the books, you do not know what is contained within the book. Thus, you have no right to assume to know what the author thinks or has written. This can be applied to those who love to quote aphorisms from authors and then go on to attack them, as much as it is to those who claim that this or that writer is of this or that particular political leaning, due to what they have written. How would a person know what their political leaning is, if they have not read what the author has written?

People need to open their eyes. They need to open their eyes and realise that if they do not at least look at these books and authors they hate so much, they will be unprepared for those who use the writings within them. 

The Nazi Party in Germany did not just sprout from the ground, its popularity did not just grow over night it took time and persuasion of people. It was only when people's rights were being infringed upon, when people were being attacked and murdered that some people realised that something was wrong, but the mass of people didn't. The actions that the Nazis took were legal, they were passed by law. Think about that for a moment, those who hid Jews were breaking the law, those who murdered them, homosexuals and disabled people, were doing it legally according to the laws of their country.

How can you defend against a political standpoint if you don't know how it grows?

How can you defend against an ideology if you don't know what its tenets are?

How can you prevent the same things from happening if you don't know how it all started?

Erasing history because it's ugly, or because it makes people uncomfortable is not a good thing. It is criminal because it leaves people unprepared for the same to happen again. They are unprepared because they don't see the warning signs. The threat is not from the idiot skinheads in the streets marching about, it is from those who keep their feelings hidden, who keep their ideologies to themselves, but make small changes to our society to gradually twist things their way.

People complain about eugenics programs. How about the eugenics program by default that is happening in the world right now as a result of price increases? What happens when the poor cannot afford to eat? What happens when people even on benefits from the government cannot afford to keep themselves alive and eat? They die. The prices go up, more people die. It is eugenics by social class, by wealth. If you are not healthy enough to work, or do not have employment, you are priced out of LIFE.

Sounds crazy? Well who controls the ability to change inflation? Who controls the ability to give people on payments enough money to live rather than having them on the poverty line, or below it? Yes, that's right the government. Who do they act in the interest of? Their rich friends, no the so-called "people". Tax breaks do nothing for people on benefits.

What are the policies of these people? What are their true ideologies? How many of those match up to the ideologies of the fascists that people claim to be fighting by preventing people from reading books? Our oligarchical society, I say oligarchical because it takes thousands of dollars to run for office and not everyone has that money, only the top of the money piles, makes pitiful concessions to those below them while hoarding the riches to themselves. 

They complain about the cost of welfare, that the people on payments are not giving back to society. Well have a look at the Nazi policy and how they felt about the disabled, it is pretty much the same. The problem with the budget does not come from those from below, it comes from those from above. If the billionaires and millionaires actually paid any tax, rather than getting tax breaks, the budget would be a lot healthier. Our politicians look at things from the top, they have no clue about the people they represent. They are the enemy that, so-called politically-enlightened people, are ignoring because they foolishly believe we live in a democracy.

They would understand our actual state if they actually read some of the books they are so frightened to read. They would understand what's happening to their society, and what's happening to the people that they are supposedly defending while they are failing to do so, if they picked up the book and read it and understood what's actually happening.

Read the book. 

Yes, it will be ugly. 

No, you won't like it. 

That's not the point.

Get an education.

Learn how you can actually do some good.

Cheers,

Henry.

The Princess Bride: What can we learn from The Duel of Wits?

Greetings,

When most people think of "The Princess Bride" (1987), they think of the duel on the cliffs, especially if you are of the "swordy" nature; in the same vein they think of "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to die." the relentless revenge of a boy trying to avenge the death of his father. They think of the reputation of the Dread Pirate Roberts, or of true love and how it will never separate Buttercup and Westley. 

<SPOILER WARNING> (for anyone silly enough not to have watched this movie which has so many lessons hidden within it)

There is another scene I would like to discuss a scene that happens after the duel on the cliffs; it happens after Westley (currently the Man in Black) wrestles with Fezzik and brings the mountain of a man down. It is the meeting of Vizzini and the Man in Black the duel of wits. 

Vizzini holds the Princess with a knife to her throat, there is a little banter between the two of them, and then the following is said:

Vizzini: I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.

Man in Black: You're that smart?

Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Man in Black: Yes.

Vizzini: Morons. (Source)

They then decide to have a "duel of wits," between them. Two cups of wine are poured. The Man in Black produces a container of poison, which he has Vizzini smell, it is odourless, tasteless and dissolves instantly in water "iocane poison" it is named. It will be placed in one of the cups, they will drink and find out "which one is right, and which one is dead." The Man in Black takes the cups and places the poison then places them back on the rock. Vizzini then uses logic to figure out which cup has the poison. He distracts the Man in Black and switches the cups. They both drink, and after a little gloating about how he switched glasses, Vizzini falls dead. Both cups were poisoned. The Man in Black had spent time developing a resistance to "iocane poison."

The first question: Could Vizzini have survived the encounter with the Man in Black? 

An argument could be made that as the poison is odourless and tasteless, Vizzini ingested the poison as soon as the Man in black offered it to him to smell, particles of the poison could have been ingested at this early stage and Vizzini was a dead man already. This is more a "Kennedy assassination/magic bullet" sort of approach to the situation. So, we will leave this one alone and focus on the duel of wits.

If a person follows Vizzini's logic through his argument, it is a rambling statement of facts and theories, where he starts with some sound theories, but ends up going completely off-track. The same process could have been used. In the movie, Vizzini was going to die, it was a plot point that was required, so the Man in Black could plan for the castle assault in the final part of the story. Even if the wine had been spilt, thus Vizzini not choosing either cup, duel would have started again, just with a different game. In the end Vizzini was going to die.

Next question: What can we learn from the duel of wits?

Do you want to see all the answers? Join me Patreon page for more discussions along with many others.

Monetisation: A Question of Requirement

 Greetings,

I have previously discussed the question of what my time is worth, and also a post about whether or not my time at university was a waste of time. I have been happy cruising along with my payments from Services Australia, under the auspices of the Department of Social Services. Yes, regardless of their re-branding, change of logo, or whatever, they are still the Department of Social Services, or DSS in Australia. However, more recently, there have been comments about what advantages I have, what privileges I have, and quite frankly with the way that the government has been managing the country, I have been feeling the squeeze on the more social/comfort parts of my life.

The result of all of this consideration? 

There needs to be a little background before I get to that. I write four blogs at the moment, this one, "A Fencer's Ramblings" my fencing blog where I discuss fencing and training in fencing, and all of the details that go along with that pursuit; "A Life with Fibromyalgia" where I discuss some of my medical history, and how I deal with my chronic illnesses, primarily fibromyalgia; and "Olde Wordes: An Examination of Elizabethan English" which began as a foundation for writing the Elizabethan portion of one of my books, which I published, His Practice in Modern and Elizabethan English. This was the second book that I have published, the first one was a book version of a series of my fencing blog articles, plus some extras added in, entitled Un-Blogged: A Fencer's Ramblings.

I write a lot most of my writing does not see the light of day, unless I find that the articles are of particular interest to a particular group. You can find a profile of me on academia.edu with more of my articles; these are more of a scholarly bend to them, though at least one of them is a bit of fun. The point here being that I have written a lot and seen very little in the way of financial recompense for the hours of work and the thousands and thousands of words I have written.

I have begun a profile on Patreon. I will be putting my more considered and researched articles on this site where people can pay me for the effort that has gone into producing the articles. I will not be removing articles from sites where they are already held, unless I do updates or improvements. In this case the newer versions will appear on the Patreon site for access to those people willing to pay me for my time and expertise.

I have no doubt that there will be some who will scoff at these efforts and who will make comment about the monetisation of my writing. To these people, I will say that I am simply expecting to be paid for the work that I am putting in, for the information that I am supplying, for the expertise that I am supplying in the process. If that is not sufficient explanation, then they can simply go elsewhere, as they are not my concern.

I will still put articles on my various blogs, but they will not be of the same size or quality that they used to be, they will be shorter, and likely pointing to more significant articles on the Patreon site. If you want someone to blame for all of this, you can blame the government; all the rich individuals who don't want to pay their taxes; and all those who still believe that people with disabilities choose not to work, and choose to allow their disabilities to impact their lives so much that the government keeps disability payments low, so low that they are under the taxable threshold, while the prices of basic food and accommodation rises.

Cheers,

Henry.

Symbols of Hate: What is a Symbol?

Greetings,

I have been thinking about this post for a while. It is about a sensitive topic, and likely to get me hounded from some quarters, but such is the nature of being a person willing to put their thoughts to print. This should be noted, I am just putting my thoughts to print, nothing more.

There are certain symbols which have been recognised as "symbols of hate" due to certain crimes which have been perpetrated in association with them. In some instances, these have been crimes against humanity. This discussion does not deny any of these crimes, nor does it deny that they were crimes. This is an examination of the symbols which have become associated with them.

The government of Queensland, Australia decided, along with several other governments in Australia, that symbols of hate should not be tolerated, and thus they proposed a ban on hate symbols, so the media tells us. Now, one should always be careful about what the media tells us, and what exactly the media is telling us. The purpose of this ban is to strengthen the government's stand against hate crimes, "Queensland’s attorney general has confirmed the Nazi salute will be captured under proposed laws that ban hate symbols and strengthen the state’s response to vilification." 

Now, of importance about this proposal, is that it is not to ban images or symbols of Nazism, as has been interpreted by some, it is a ban on the "public display of hate symbols" which is a much broader area, and allows for much broader interpretation. One should really read the ministerial statement a little more closely to realise what is actually going on.

A symbol on its own means nothing. It is just a character, a pictogram, an image. When that same symbol is carried by a group of individuals, then it comes to have meaning. National flags are symbols not because of the images themselves, but because of their association with the nations to which they belong.

The Eureka flag, for example, is now associated with trade unionists, and it is now banned from being flown. It's original association was for gold miners on the Ballarat gold fields who revolted against the British administration and their taxation of the miners, culminating in the Eureka Stockade. 

We should all carefully consider what the symbols mean, and what they are associated with. In every situation, context is of great importance. The question that should be asked, is whose interpretation of "hate symbol" is going to be used when a symbol is banned in Queensland and other places that adopt such legislation? Will the Eureka flag fall under such jurisdiction? Will this be simply another method to curb our "freedom of expression"? Hopefully, the government finally use a tool correctly, as it was designed to be used and use it to reduce hate crimes.

Just for a thought process: Consider what the Palestinians think of the Star of David, painted over the tanks of the Israeli Army which come through their streets, marked on the members of the military who  kill members of their families, and force them into refugee camps. In reverse, consider what the Israelis think of the Crescent and Star, or the white Arabic script on a black background, as a terrorist group celebrates another attack on an Israeli target. Are these symbols of hate? Certainly not to those who carry them.

The individual's interpretation of a symbol, the society's interpretation of the symbol, the use of the symbol and what it is associated with give the symbol meaning. A symbol gives everyone something to rally around; sometimes the symbol is an individual, sometimes it is an icon. It gives power through the strength of those who rally around it. Consider the symbols of Star Wars or Star Trek, and what would happen if the people who rally around these symbols were motivated? Then again, who says they are not.

Cheers,

Henry.

AI and Writing

Greetings,

AI is a hot topic currently, people are playing with AI and art, throwing interesting topics at it to see what it can produce. Some are throwing topics at its chat engines to see what it can produce in the way of written articles and so forth, to see how they compare in comparison to those written by human beings. There is also discussion about whether AI is a threat to people's jobs, whether we will be able to tell whether someone has simply asked an AI to write an article, or has written it themselves. I have some things to say about this topic, and those associated.

In my opinion what is being presented as "AI" is not true AI at all. AI stands for Artificial Intelligence. In my mind, this would imply some sort of sentience on the part of the creation, some sort of autonomy, these current creations do not have this, for which I am most grateful. Thus, I would refer to them as MI, or Machine Intelligence. There is a certain amount of autonomous thought, but it requires prompting from an outside source to work. Then again, I am not qualified in the area, so this is (very much) a layperson's opinion.

If you're worried about this AI taking over your job, because it can produce information, write articles and so forth by collecting information the first thing that you need to do is to stop feeding it. Every time a person asks it a question, asks it to write something, tells it how to improve, it gets better at what it does, it improves. You are arming the weapon that is pointed at you, it is like the rabbit telling the hunter where they will be eating, or its path so the hunter can make an easier shot.

This goes for people who are using it to write things and also those who are using it for AI Art. By using it to learn about art and how we think you are also teaching it to think in alternative ways. Stop feeding it.

Next, for all those who have or are considering producing articles of writing of any kind through AI, as an author, I would like to say something, screw you. You are cheapening what I do. You are cheapening what every author on the planet does. You are giving an "out" to people, legitimising it by using it more often, allowing people to be lazy about writing. You are devaluing writing and the value of writers. You are stealing the jobs of researchers, writers, and editors. You are devaluing human products.

Consider that in a piece of writing, especially one that goes to print on a public medium, published in a book, newspaper, or magazine, consider:

• time spent researching the article; 
• time spent writing the article;
• time spent editing the article;
• time spent re-writing the article;
• time spent formatting the article for publication.

By using AI chat-bots or AI writers to produce articles or so forth you are cheapening the human efforts that go into this process. You put in a subject, the AI researches and writes the article for you. It is lazy, you have learned nothing from the process, except how to operate the AI, you are a button-pusher, not an author.

When the AI comes along and takes your jobs because it has learned too much and you can be replaced by someone who can type the same subjects into an AI and produce sanitised articles, appropriate to what an organisation wants. Yes, it is a program, the censorship can be programmed in to it. When people forget how to write, how to research, and our population turns into sheep, following whatever they are fed, remember you were warned. Remember there was a voice that said, "No."

You have been warned.

Henry.

It Can Happen to Anyone...

Let me tell you a story...

"They were introduced by a mutual acquaintance, the pair of them. They hit it off for a while, found a friendship through the mutual acquaintance and a familiar love of music, books, and feelings about different issues. They shared company, going out together for a social occasion here and there, having a drink and a meal occasionally, with the mutual friend, and sometimes just together.

Due to the connections between them, one of the acquaintances introduced them to a social group that was of of particular interest, took "the new friend" along to some of their events, showed them around, introduced them to some new people. This was all good and fine, except the person's friends had an ill-feeling about "the new friend," so they preferred to stay away. The friends made their concerns known, but they were ignored, lost in the bliss of a new friendship, something that had not happened in a while, the other reacted not realising their friends were trying to protect them.

The meetings between the pair became more intimate. They shared one another's bodies and enjoyed the time that they did, the one thought it was nice, nothing serious, just a bit of fun. They continued to go out for mutual outings going to the social groups. But more time was beginning to be spent alone, behind closed doors, together in intimate circumstances; "the new friend's" choice, they didn't want to share anymore; the individual ignored this possessiveness, lost in the human connection. "The new friend" used their intimate connection as a weapon, knowing that the intimacy between them was something they both craved. 

The one would go to their friend's place alone when "the new friend" was away. Their friend's began noticing changes in the person. There were changes in the way they held themselves, they were somehow smaller; the way they reacted to normal situations, flinching at a touch; defensive to normal questions; there was something going on. The friends asked about "the new friend" and were told everything was "fine," it was still casual, there was nothing to worry about... 

They returned home to find "the new friend" waiting for them on their front doorstep, asking where they had been. At their friends, an innocent reply, and the truth. "The new friend" had been waiting there for ages; "the new friend" never had said anything about coming over previously. Still there was implied guilt. They both go inside. 

"The new friend" talks about plans for the weekend, the other one already had plans; there are accusations of neglect, and disregard, with no consideration that they had not made plans together. "The new friend" forgives them, and says they will just come along; new plans will have to be made. They decide that it is time for dinner, "the new friend" says they will cook as they have brought something over. "The new friend" cooks, something which they like, but the person does not; they eat it to avoid an argument. 

The person has a meeting in the morning, so mentions they need to go to bed, "the new friend" begins to get undressed to join them. They go to bed, in the middle of the night, the person is woken up by "the new friend" molesting them so they can be intimate; the person reminds "the new friend" about the meeting, with little response. The person wakes late the next morning, can't shower alone, ends up late for the meeting, unlike ever before.

They come home and find that "the new friend" is not on the front doorstep. There is a note on the door, explaining how selfish the person has been, "the new friend" will not be back for a while; there is a sense of relief. The person slides back into their old routine for a while. "The new friend" does not make an appearance, does not contact them for a period; they think, "Maybe they are gone." with relief.

Two weeks go by, everything has gotten back to normal. "The new friend" has not been seen at the social group, it would seem that they have made some statements and not impressed some people with their actions. Finally, things are returning to normal... 

Then "the new friend" appears again...

"The new friend" is there at another social group, a sister group of the same. They have made friends with other members of the group. They wave from the other side of the room. The individual gets up and leaves, trying to find a way to escape. They move outside, "the new friend" follows with their new friends in tow, people who the individual knows. The person is cornered, questions are asked, impossible questions to answer without seeming like a selfish individual, or so it would seem. Finally there is an escape back to a group of friends.

No safety in your social group...

"The new friend" is on the street, "happening" to be at the same location at the same time. Of course they would know the places the person would go, they went together to those places when they went out. "The new friend" seems to appear at places more consistently than they should. The person goes to talk to the mutual friend about "the new friend," they will see what they can do; it makes things worse. 

No safety out in public...

"The new friend" is knocking on the door, they want to talk about what happened previously and come to some agreement about what they did wrong. They want to make sure that their friendship was something that they can remember, and make sure that it was not a regret. The person knows what will happen if they let "the new friend" back in their life; it will start all over again.

No safety at home...

The door remains closed. The person thinks and thinks hard about the situation. What is there to do? What can a person do in this situation? "The new friend" is at the front door waiting for them, so there is no way to avoid them that way. They will only turn whatever you say back on you. They will only use whatever you say to worm their way back into your life. The brain freezes from anxiety. How can a person not be safe in their own home from another person?... 

The back door. The stereo is set, and will play until the CDs run out, which will be hours. A light is always left on in the lounge. Pick up keys, put down keys, change clothes, put on shoes, pick up keys, and other personal effects. Go to the back door, open it quietly. Close it quietly. Over the fence through the neighbour's yard. Heart is pounding in their ears... Walk swiftly to a friend's house to seek help."

The sad thing today is that stalking happens. Sometime people get it into their heads that others are more interested in them than they actually are. The problem is that sometimes that other person is too nice to tell them to go away, or maybe they have mental issues of their own which prevents them from doing so. Sometimes the person can take a hint and will leave the person alone, the problem happens when they can't and don't. Stalking results when one person ends up following the other around, trying to encourage them to be interested in them by invading their life. 

Now, read this story again, with the protagonist as a male... because this is my story...

Men get stalked too. Regardless of the situation, the injury or the activity. It occurs to all. Colouring or gendering such things does not help. Statistics will show one picture or another, it all depends on who wants to show what, hence there are no statistics to show, women stalking men, or men stalking women, or even men stalking men, or women stalking women. There will be evidence for all of them present. Statistics can be twisted this way and that to suit whoever finds them. Stalking happens to all types of people, regardless of their gender. 

Think before you make statements. There is always another story that you have not heard, a battle that another has fought, or is fighting. For once it would be nice if we could treat everyone with the same kindness and respect that we all expect.

Cheers,

Henry.

Health or Life

 Greetings,

Yet another medication has fallen under the hammer of the government, removed from the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme. In this case it is Deptran its generic form being Doxepin. It is nominally an antidepressant. In my case it is used to assist with the cluster headaches which happen as a result of the issues with my neck. So the result is that I will be going along to the doctor with my wife to find a replacement, some other drug that will have the same effects, that won't upset the balance with all my other medications...

Why is this article here and not on my fibromyalgia blog? The reason is that I am going to get a little philosophical and likely a little political with my post. 

Our government changed from a Liberal (conservative) government to a Labor (less-conservative) government last election. Some haled it as a change for the better, things would be better for lower-income earners and pensioners, like me. Yeah, better, I think there has been a $40 increase in my pension... wow. So thrilled... not. Prescriptions have increased again. Prices and inflation are still going up and as previously stated things are just being made more difficult for people on lower incomes.

If a person were of a conspiratorial mind one could almost think that it was a project of eugenics. You simply make life so expensive that the poor cannot afford to live and they die off. The problem is that then the rich people would have no one to do all their menial labour, and they will feel the bite, if they ever "fall." Then again, I have already spoken about "the rich" and perspectives on who is rich and who isn't.

I have multiple conditions which is the reason that I am on a disability pension. I am on a low income due to the disability pension. To afford all of the things that would assist me to become as healthy as I could be would result in me not having a life... and likely result in me losing the house that I have bought. So, in effect I have the choice of being "healthy" or having a life. In an expression that one of my friends likes or liked to use, "I'm here for a good time, not a long time." I prefer quality of life over quantity of life. The result is that I will have a life rather than health, or at least just enough health to survive and do what I like to do. I will make the best of my situation.

"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!"
- Hunter S. Thompson

I like the quote from Thompson above. I tend to go through "boom and bust" situations. I go as hard as I can and then happily pay for the consequences of my actions later on. This may not be the healthiest way to approach things, but I sure get my enjoyment out of things. I probably should put money away and save to go to the physiotherapist and other allied health, but I would rather spend it on having a life, living life to my best capacity. I will find ways and means with what I have, this is what I have so this is what I will work with. In the choice between health or life, give me life.

Cheers,

Henry.