Saturday 21 December 2019

My Chinese handwriting, 2019 sample.

I've had a lot of frustration with pens this year: here I'm using a very large pen, writing at a large scale… but the line-style still isn't really working for me.

Wednesday 11 December 2019

Tuesday 10 December 2019

On academia itself. Reflections, now at more than 40 years of age.

[A reply.]

My own experience with universities (plural) is so astoundingly negative that I try not to generalize about it.

You mention Hobbes as an example.

At Univ. of Toronto (supposedly the best university in the country) I enrolled in an advanced course on Hobbes (meaning 300 or 400 level, and only specialists are permitted to enroll).

When I mentioned the name of Cromwell, i.e., Oliver Cromwell, the professor said angrily, "WHO?"

I asked how she could be teaching a course on Hobbes if she did not know the name Cromwell.

She instructed me, both before and after that dialogue, that I ought to drop the course because it would be "an open reading", and should be unencumbered by knowledge of facts of any kind.

She started the class by asking if anyone had already read the book (Leviathan) and then instructed me, at that moment, that I should drop the course, for these reasons.

This experience was, in fact, extremely upsetting to me at the time (i.e., for many days after).  I am 41 years old now, and have suffered in both great magnitude and great variety, both depth and breadth, so to speak; today, such a thing might just inspire me to laugh and make some jeering remarks, however, it was really a disturbing experience at the time.

My experience with universities, then and now, was simply of a corrupt oligarchy of bullies defending their positions of unearned authority by denouncing and exiling anyone who challenged their authority —including, e.g., offering a "challenge" by daring to actually read the "required reading" book.

The accumulated "wisdom" even on the most mainstream philosophical questions (e.g., Aristotle) astounds me in much the same way, so that, after decades, it ceases to be astounding: the same corrupt oligarchy accomplishes nothing over many decades, so that when I search the archives for "progress" (again, even on the most mainstream of research/historical questions imaginable) I find instead "regress".  The computerization of past research makes this kind of survey now easier to do, and the embarrassment at the intellectual poverty of our institutions harder to endure.

In an area as obscure as the politics of Laos, the endangered language Cree, or the archaeology of the Pali language, one begins such a search with the excuse of "obscurity" in hand; but I find the intellectual quality on mainstream subjects (from Aristotle to the use of "Extraordinary Rendition" (i.e., torture) by the United States in recent years, or the reforms to the Chinese medical system) to actually be worse than the research in the many obscure fields I applied myself to before.


Thursday 28 November 2019

More lies and bullying about Copyright on Youtube.

[Message from Andrea Materia, 1 of 2.] 

Since you disputed the claim, there's no other course allowed by YouTube system other than a copyright strike.

However, I manually delayed this for 7 days before it takes effect. It will not, if you retract your dispute. It's how YouTube copyright system works.

It's not at all important my background (I have a degree in Law as a matter of fact), but what DMCA requires. Usage of copyrighted works without a proper license in a publicly distributed audiovisual content, specifically a commercial video, is not allowed.

You haven't asked for permission to the TV producers of the show, nor obtained an agreement in writing. Which would be exactly what a TV station offering a critique of Star Wars would immediately do, even before starting filming that critique segment.

In any case, I'm cc'ing a representative from The Dr. Oz Show online team, if you want to reach out to them.

Your freedom of speech is not impaired at all and we haven't blocked your video, but you cannot monetize works including copyrighted footage, notwithstanding the intrinsic cultural value of your commentary. It is indeed one of the four factors of the Fair Use doctrin: usage must be NON commercial in nature.


[Message from Andrea Materia, 2 of 2.] 

Let me say something. . 
Blocking the monetization is not blocking you from showing the videos. Many channels bloc their videos making impossible for other channel to show their videos even if they use few seconds of their video. The problem is not the right of speech. Is the “right to monetize”. By the way I understand that this part has been used within a longer video. So it’s useless to discuss further. 
You will retract the dispute  and we will manually take the claim away so that you can monetize your video. 
Have a wonderful thanksgiving. 


[My reply.] 

I will reply to both of you.

Please understand that I am explaining the sense in which you are "incorrect": this is a matter of being right or wrong.

Re: "Your freedom of speech is not impaired at all and we haven't blocked your video, but you cannot monetize works including copyrighted footage, notwithstanding the intrinsic cultural value of your commentary."

This is untrue: in the American legal tradition (and it is similar in the British Empire tradition, i.e., England and Canada) the right to earn money from your speech is identical to freedom of speech.  For example, if someone prevents a newspaper from earning revenue (from advertising) because of their political message, that is legally tantamount to repressing their freedom of speech.

If the government prevents a newspaper from selling advertising because it is too left-wing (or too right-wing) in its (editorial) political views, that is (legally) repressing the newspaper's freedom of speech.

Please understand: you are factually incorrect about this (in the legal and policy context of youtube).  In Communist China, there is a different legal tradition, but this is irrelevant to the discussion of youtube policy in 2019 (under American law, for the most part).

Re: "You haven't asked for permission to the TV producers of the show, nor obtained an agreement in writing. Which would be exactly what a TV station offering a critique of Star Wars would immediately do, even before starting filming that critique segment."

This is completely, factually untrue (both in principle and in practice).

TV stations do not require permission to criticize a clip of Star Wars, nor a clip of Donald Trump speaking: they DO NOT need to get an agreement in writing for this type of broadcasting (and they never do so in the United States).

Use of footage of a private individual is somewhat different (e.g., if you had "hidden camera" footage of a non-famous, non-political person who did not agree to participate), but any "public figure" is fair use and fair game.

I do not know how you made this error: you are both very badly mistaken about the basic reality of "fair use" law in the American tradition (and apparently you have no experience working in the media… whereas I do!).

Again, you can familiarize yourself with the principles and practices in the American tradition via Wikipedia:

"[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ..."

That's the deal.

Using a one minute quotation from Jordan Peterson (a public figure) in the context of offering a political critique of Jordan Peterson is very clearly protected freedom of speech both under American law and under youtube policy.

It is astounding that you have failed to recognize this.

Re: "By the way I understand that this part has been used within a longer video. So it’s useless to discuss further. You will retract the dispute  and we will manually take the claim away so that you can monetize your video. "

This is a somewhat bizarre statement: are you (or are you not) admitting that you have been wrong in every single statement you made above?

Are you, in fact, going to cancel your malicious and false copyright strike against my channel, and the repression of my free speech through the intentional misuse of youtube's copyright system?

You say, "and we will manually take the claim away so that you can monetize your video."

We'll see.  Either you'll do it, or I'll see you in court.

You CANNOT win in court, do you understand this?  I won't even need to hire a lawyer: the only possible argument you could offer (legally) would be that "one minute" of the video is so extensive that it replaces the original TV program (akin to playing the whole of Star Wars in reviewing Star Wars), and you know very well that you could not win with this argument.

Wednesday 27 November 2019

Every day I have to deal with (false) copyright claims against my channel.


we will give you 7 days to retract your dispute before issuing a copyright strike.

You're severely misunderstanding how copyright law works.

We haven't removed your video from YouTube, nor prevented you from presenting your commentary and voicing your freedom of expression.

We have on the other hand claimed the part of your video which uses, WITHOUT a proper license, an entire minute of our property, since we manage all of Dr Oz assets on YouTube on his behalf.

Fair Use does allow your to transform the original, as you say, and indeed you have NOT received any copyright strike yet.

But it doesn't allow you to monetize intellectual properties not of your own. You have to negotiate an appropriate license for that.

I hope you will appreciate the fact that we try to reach out to Creators instead of just managing copyright and sending out notifications as all of the other networks do.

Thank you.


Andrea Materia

Greater Fool Media Srl, CEO


[My reply.]

You are incorrect on every point of fact here —including your
statement that you have NOT made a copyright strike against me (you

Re: "You're severely misunderstanding how copyright law works."

No, I might say these same words back to you: I'd encourage you to
consider both youtube's own guidelines and to just glance at a few
wikipedia articles on the "Fair Use" case law (court precedents) that
both define and describe what the American tradition is.

Please ask yourself this question: would a T.V. station be allowed to
play "an entire minute" (as you say) of the film Star Wars, in the
process of offering a critique of that film?  Yes, they would.  That
is fair use (a.k.a. "fair dealing", etc.) —and it is a clearly
protected form of freedom of speech.

Please ask yourself: would I be allowed to play "an entire minute" of
footage of Donald Trump speaking (that I did not record myself, but
someone else owned the rights to) in the course of offering a critique
of Donald Trump?  This is the most clearly protected use of freedom of
speech in the United States (and in most western democracies likewise)
and I am protected even in broadcasting on television and even in
offering advertisements (in a newspaper, on television, or on youtube)
because a law to the contrary would have "a chilling effect" on
freedom of speech.

You say that you are a C.E.O.

May I ask what university education you have?  My major was political
science.  I understand your (stated) good intentions, but you're wrong
on this: if you take me to court, you'll lose (a very casual glance at
Wikipedia-level summaries of salient case law will make this clear to
you, if you have some education in the field.

Thank you for your time, and by all means, please do cancel your
copyright strike against my channel.  Otherwise, yes, I'll see you in


Tuesday 12 November 2019

You know the lifestyle.

You can just barely see the Chinese vocabulary cards in the distance, past the maquette of Socrates.  This photograph was, in fact, taken at a time when I was using the blank (and red) memorization-cards (in the foreground) for modern greek, not Chinese.

Monday 7 October 2019

Reminder: Chinese has Two Sets of Numerals ("Banking Numerals" or "Safety Numerals")


Several of these numerals have multiple, alternate forms: there is definitely a form of 貳 in use that just has two lines in the bottom-left corner, for example, and and 叁 can be written as 参, etc.

Saturday 28 September 2019

Climate Change, Men With Hammers in Search of Nails

We have this over-used phrase about hammers and nails.

We have a genuine problem in politics: people believe in a method and then look for a pretext to apply it.

The left thinks anti-capitalist rebellion is their hammer —and then they look at climate change as a pretext, a nail.

Wednesday 25 September 2019

The non-philosophy of the internet, the replacement of journalism (and paid authorship) by social media, etc.

I was born at a time when men still earned money as authors, as journalists. I lived long enough to see that whole economic sphere collapse, to be replaced by the internet: a place where advertising and journalism no longer occupy separate pages, but became one form of flattery.


The internet, in this sense, is predatory: it will tell people what they want to hear, it will let them feel what they want to feel. And the most foolish are victims of it, feeling no shame at their own wanting that comes before the swindle. An artfully distorted mirror.


The people who actually are beautiful don't want to be told that they're beautiful.

The people who actually are brilliant don't want to be told they're intelligent.

The tragedy of flattery is precisely in its social function: it preys upon the weak. On them that want to hear.


Delusory optimism is as much an evolved organ as the hair on your head. Tangentially related to survival.

What you do with it, your hairstyle, is another matter.

And yeah, as for myself, I'd rather do without. I have no delusions about myself. I'd enjoy life more if I did.


I don't act like a snob.

I am a snob.

I don't play hard to get.

I'm just genuinely hard to get.

And I'm not lonely.

I am alone.

Saturday 14 September 2019

September, 2019, Financial Report: How Much Do I Earn From Youtube?

Well, the month-to-month statistics have become even less consistent now, as Google corporation has decided to deprive us of the ability to generate stats for each period of 30 days (forcing us to calculate for a period of 28 days).

The update to the youtube analytics interface does, however, have some improvements: you can see clearly, e.g., that while these stats were generated on Sept. 14th, they only include the numbers up to Sept. 12th, etc.

You also now have an interesting number in the top-left corner: the number of UNIQUE viewers (per 28 days), a statistic quite a bit different from the number of views/viewing-time.  Over the last 90 days, the system estimates that I reached 66,500 unique viewers, but 235,700 views (per se).

This equates to $138 in revenue over 28 days, and $523 over the last 90 days.

Tuesday 10 September 2019

Missing my daughter, drawings made when first learning Chinese

These drawings were made years ago, when I'd first arrived in Victoria, first started learning Chinese (at UVic).  I was missing my daughter, and imagining I might be able to illustrate a children's book for her, eventually.

Friday 16 August 2019

August, 2019, Financial Report: How Much Do I Earn From Youtube?

As you can see, the money I made from youtube amounts to just over $162 in 30 days, a significant decrease (compared to the month before).  Note that the dates here do not precisely line up with the month before (i.e., it is not a perfect sequence of 30 days, followed by the next 30 days in sequence).

Sunday 14 July 2019

July, 2019, Financial Report: How Much Do I Earn From Youtube?

As you can see, the money I made from youtube amounts to just over $217 in 30 days, a modest increase over the month before.

Monday 8 July 2019

On the moderate dishonesty of professional historians.

What most people learn, in our system of education, is to venerate the "moderate dishonesty" of the professional historian; as students, we are corrupted more than we know, and then have trouble understanding anything contradicting this aesthetic expectation.

Thursday 13 June 2019

June, 2019, Financial Report: How Much Do I Earn From Youtube?

As you can see, the money I made from youtube amounts to just under $200 in 30 days ($196.15), and this is, indeed, a significant increase over the month before.

Thursday 6 June 2019

Virtue begins and ends with a refusal to compromise.

Virtue begins and ends with a refusal to compromise; but people do not regard "being uncompromising" as a virtue.

(I could have, instead, structured this sentence around defiance and apathy: virtue begins and ends with defiance in the face of apathy, but to be defiant isn't perceived as a virtue.)

Tuesday 21 May 2019

Question from a viewer about learning Greek (Ancient Greek & Modern Greek)

[My reply to the question from a viewer, shown in the image above.]  I started learning Greek during a very sad, very memorable time in my life: while my marriage with my ex-wife was in-the-process of breaking up, and while I was taking care of my infant daughter 24 hours per day.  However, infants do sleep for many hours of the day (even if unpredictably) and so I would put my daughter down in the crib, and study Greek at a table in the same room with her, where she was napping/sleeping.  As "everyone" will tell you: Greek (ancient and modern) is fundamentally similar to Pali (and Sanskrit).

Yes, the "everyone" being alluded to is a pretty erudite circle, but hey, you know you're talking to a snob.  ;-) 

There is indeed a "What if?" question, for "What if I had continued to study Greek?"   Instead, as you know, I've been through tremendous misery with Chinese and Japanese since then.  However, I have zero faith in Greek culture: I honestly do not think I could ever have a job in Greece, and I do not think I'd have friends in Greece —I have one Greek friend now (internet-only, we've never met) who very much rejects my understanding of the modern culture, and who insists I'd do very well in modern Greek culture, and with the modern Greek language.  If my daughter does actually move to Bulgaria, I would indeed consider moving to Greece, and learning Greek (again).  And yes, the years I spent studying Pali actually do make it easier to learn Greek (ancient or modern: they are really, IMO, the same language to a greater extent than the British ever want to admit, i.e., because the British insist on pronouncing Greek words with a British accent that they pretend is "authentic" ancient Greek).

逃往雲南: 老爸老媽的浪漫史 (我真實的故事)

Or, "How I met your mother": the true story of a peculiar journey from Laos to Yunnan.



Monday 13 May 2019

May, 2019, Financial Report: How Much Do I Earn From Youtube?

As you can see, the money I made from youtube amounts to just over $100 in 30 days ($101.15), and this is, indeed, a modest increase over the month before.

Thursday 18 April 2019

Dao-De-Jing (道德經), the Hopeless Mess of the Modern "Received Text".

[Torn from the pages of our Vegans Learning Chinese Facebook group.]

You might find this interesting, @Damien.  There's a long and difficult to read essay over at Victor Mair's Sino-Platonic Papers reflecting on (among other things) the extent to which the translation of the DaoDeJing (道德經) is still an absolute fraud (and the evidence from comparative study of manuscripts has generally been ignored).  One example discussed is the image of this fish that should be kept in its pond: nobody (in Chinese or English, apparently) knows what the (overtly political) point of this parable/image in this passage was supposed to mean.

J Legge (Translator)
The soft overcomes the hard; and the weak the strong. Fishes should not be taken from the deep; instruments for the profit of a state should not be shown to the people.

J H McDonald (Translator)
This is called the subtle understanding
of how things are meant to be.
The soft and pliable overcomes the hard and inflexible.
Just as fish remain hidden in deep waters,
it is best to keep weapons out of sight.

Lin Yutang (Translator)
Gentleness overcomes strength:
Fish should be left in the deep pool,
And sharp weapons of the state should be left
Where none can see them.
Link to the article mentioned:

Sunday 14 April 2019

April, 2019, Monthly Financial Report: How Much I Make From Youtube.

The quality of the videos may be going up, but the revenue is continuing to go down: last month's report was $78 (in 30 days)… and this month's report is down to $69.52.  ⚠️😂

Thursday 4 April 2019

A Peculiar Quotation from My Father.

A quotation from my father: "'Time' of itself will change nothing, except as men use it to make changes. People make history, not time."  Unfortunately, the context for this quote is a bizarre "Anti-Revisionist" (i.e., Maoist) encomium in a Communist magazine (in 1967).

Thursday 14 March 2019

March, 2019, Monthly Financial Report: How Much I Make From Youtube.

IMO, if you're going to ask for donations, you should provide this type of clarity: as you can see, the youtube channel generated merely $78 in the last 30 days (!) and the actual amount I'd earn would be less than this.  With both Youtube and Patreon, some portion "evaporates" before it reaches the content creator's bank account.  With this caveat (about "evaporation") having been stated, the amount I earn from Patreon is publicly visible on the front page, and that is now $155 per month:

Wednesday 13 March 2019

Erin Janus Will Have Her Revenge.

A false copyright claim (and a copyright strike!) from Erin Janus.  Note that she is playing the game in an attempt to silence criticism: what she wanted was not to claim the revenue from the video (this is more common, e.g., if you quote a corporate source on youtube) but, instead, she's trying to get the video deleted.

Tuesday 12 March 2019

The role of the author in the paperless age.

You cannot choose whether you'll be respected or despised, appreciated or hated.  You choose only to be known or unknown.  If you become known, you will inevitably be hated and despised, to some extent, all of the time.  But if you remain unknown, you'll never be respected.

Respect requires the danger —not the difficulty— of becoming known.  Becoming known may be easy, but the risk remains the same.

Saturday 2 March 2019

How Buddhism is Taught in Canadian Universities.

Prof. King,

I provided this critique (below) in response to the assigned readings
(in PAAS100) on Buddhism.  I wrote separate messages about Daoism as it was covered in the course, also.

I am probably the only student who actually read the assigned texts on
Buddhism [note: for this particular course, this is not an unreasonable assumption!];
however, I still think it is a non-trivial fact that the
assigned readings were of such extremely low quality (not even acceptable for high-school readings), and full of absurd biases and factual errors.

I presented these issues to Prof. Iles back in September (including the message below); although he was very polite and courteous in his response, he did, simply, say that nothing in the course was going to change (he had done it the same way for so many years, and was going to continue doing so).  He also claimed that he had not said anything factually wrong; I was able to provide examples (from his lectures, not just from the assigned readings) of real factual errors.

Questions of this kind are not covered by the C.E.S.; they are, however, crucial to the pursuit of excellence in education --or even to the pursuit of adequacy in education.


---------- Forwarded message ----------

Prof. Iles,

I regret to say that the assigned readings from Edmund Holmes and the
(anonymously written?) Spice Digest are truly wince-inducing.  None of
the authors concerned had access to primary sources in any language
(and it shows).

To offer a value-neutral example from the Spice Digest, it claims:
"After the death of Buddha, there was no one to take his place or to
lead the new religion."  This is false, and it is a telling falsehood.
We have quite a lot of interesting (primary source) material
concerning who inherited power (and why) at the time of the Buddha's
death (a subject that was evidently contentious amongst monks at the
time, and it became recorded history for that reason).  It would be a
remarkable error for even an undergraduate student to say that
Buddhism was a leaderless religion at the time of the Buddha's death
(on the contrary, it was very hierarchical!); and yet this source is
presenting this false claim --to an audience of undergraduates-- as a
simple fact.

The Spice Digest section on Buddhism in China opens with the flat
statement that "in Chinese legend" Laozi and the Buddha are considered
one and the same person.  Although this legend may exist somewhere (or
may have existed in some period of time), it has never been part of
canonical Buddhism, and I think the vast majority of both Chinese
Buddhists and Chinese Daoists today would be surprised to hear it.
The text states this as a simple matter of fact, with no caveats.
Given the way this is written, a student would be entirely right to
take notes on this, and then report it back to you (as a matter of
fact) in an essay or exam, i.e., working out some chain of reasoning
starting with, "Given that the Chinese believe Buddhism was founded by

The section on the Spice Digest's first page, "The Legend of
Shakyamuni", was apparently written by someone who was unaware of the
chronological difference between the legends being reported and
canonical Buddhism.  Ashvaghosha died circa 150 AD; this is a
significant number of centuries after any the composition of any
canonical source (and yet the reader is given no sense as to what the
source of "the legend" being related here might be).  This sort of
lapse in sources and centuries would not be acceptable for a
university-level textbook on any other religion, and it would not be
acceptable for a university level reading on (e.g.) the philosophy of
Aristotle or Socrates.  A text written several centuries after the
death of Aristotle (and in a language other than ancient Greek) would
not be presented in this way, as a definitive statement about
Aristotle (nor even as a definitive legend!) --or, at least, not
without some serious caveats, explaining the source and the century it
came from.

The book-chapter by Edmund Holmes would have been considered badly
biased and flawed in 1919 (there were excellent studies of Buddhism in
print in that era!) and it is still terrible today.  It presents
itself as a very casually-written tertiary source (the author clearly
has never looked at a primary source in his life).  However, the
sources he relies on are themselves examples of "the blind leading the
blind".  For example, he is quoting the English poet Sir Edwin Arnold
(d. 1904) as if he were the Buddha himself (i.e., as if a modern,
English poem, written out of pure fancy, could be quoted as
representative of "Buddhism", or as the words of the Buddha!).  Edwin
Arnold was not a scholar of Buddhism, and neither was Edmund Holmes;
but in this chapter, undergraduates are being shown quotations from
the original fiction of Edwin Arnold as if they were direct quotations
from the Buddha (and they will not be able to see the absurdity of
that fact without researching several stages beyond the footnotes).

Edmund Holmes was evidently cultivating himself as a religious leader
in his own right, and he presents some of his own religious views here
as if they belonged to the Buddha.  Pretty much every appearance of
the word "soul" is wince-inducing; and he intentionally rejects the
fundamental tenet that "there is no soul" (also translated as "there
is no self") to instead argue --dishonestly-- that, quote, "The
distinction between the higher and the lower, the real and the
apparent self, is at the root of Buddha's moral teaching, as it is of

That is not Buddhism (it is very nearly the opposite of Buddhism!) and
it is a thesis woven into the whole chapter in a way that an
undergraduate student could not possibly decode.  If there is one
tenet that could be called a universal and unifying doctrine of
Buddhism, it is this idea of "no soul / no self"; but here students
are instead being shown an intentionally skewed summary of Buddhism
that not only minimizes this tenet, but tries to replace it with the
author's own ideas of "the higher self", the soul, and so on.

With thanks for your patience and interest,

Tuesday 12 February 2019

Don't make someone else's stupidity an excuse for your own.

I would have preferred to say, "Don't make someone else's stupidity a pretext for your own". But hey. I have to compromise with the parlance of our times.

Sunday 10 February 2019

[反共产主义] Day two.

And then I wake up the next morning and do it again, at a slightly higher level of ability (a slightly higher level of familiarity with the vocabulary, etc.).

Written before 6:00 AM, local time.

Saturday 9 February 2019

[反共产主义] Working from (and against) Chinese propaganda.

2:00 AM Chinese handwriting practice

一個我中文筆跡的例子.  No, not a paid commercial for the brand of pen.  I only switched back to reading and writing the Taiwanese written standard ("traditional Chinese") quite recently (my school was in Kunming, remember, where we used simplified characters).

Sunday 3 February 2019

Vegan Gains Threatens a Lawsuit, Dodges Obvious Moral Questions.

[Richard wrote in threatening to sue me, threatening to have my channel deleted, and so on: you can see his messages on youtube, here.  The text below is the final message I sent in correspondence to him: he never replied.  He has still never stated a single example of me telling a lie about him, nor making an untrue criminal allegation against him (all of the criminal behavior I know about is criminal behavior he has boasted about himself, e.g., hallucinogenic drug use.]


Okay, so I'll make a video proceeding with your statement that (1) you
do not currently own (real) firearms because the police do not allow
you to, under the terms of your probation, (2) correct me if I'm
wrong, but you have lied (and you continue to lie) in claiming that
you do not own any real weapons (you claim that all of your weapons
are "fake" and are "toys") because the knives, assault batons, swords,
etc., are indeed real weapons, (3) you still want to own guns in the
future, as soon as you are allowed to do so legally.  Is this correct?

Do you want to clarify what your position on firearms ownership is?

Do you believe that someone who has hallucinations of the kind you
describe yourself (including auditory hallucinations, "hearing voices"
that are not there, having paranoid and aggressive reactions to
strangers, with the specific delusion that people are trying to kill
you when they just say hello to you, or shake hands with you, etc.)
…do you think that sort of person should be allowed to own, use and
carry firearms?

If I described that person to you, as someone other than yourself,
would you agree with the statement, "The government is justified in
doubt their responsibility to safely use firearms"?

Do you think that the military would be willing to recruit or employ
someone with this list of symptoms, and to trust them to use guns
responsibly in a high-pressure situation?

Would you not agree that someone who had your checklist of symptoms
might be disqualified from owning/carrying firearms in at least some
democratic countries?

Wednesday 30 January 2019

Another phrase coined on my youtube channel?

I never even attempted to keep count of how many phrases I've coined —that I've APPARENTLY coined— in passing on my youtube channel.  In most cases, I said/wrote them in passing, and then googled around to check if I had been quoting someone without realizing it, etc.

In this case… "Hollow Tourism".

Thursday 17 January 2019

…my point is, rather, "I'm asking the right questions".

Q: "[how] do you see creating fine art and music?"  This is the part few people suspect: I'm extremely self-critical, and I really do openly discuss (also) the extent to which even learning languages and doing humanitarian work is a waste of time (I think that, e.g., a military veteran could also talk about both the ways in which being in the army is edifying, and also the ways in which it is a waste of time).  I regard your question as legitimate and as giving rise to several interesting answers (and I probably have talked about it a few times, somewhere in my trail of 1,200 videos) —but I also enjoy genuinely reflecting on (e.g.) the extent to which the most sincere efforts imaginable at "improving yourself/society" (through reading or humanitarian work) can turn out to be a waste of time.  I think the whole discourse would be meaningless if I proceeded from a dogmatic position of, "I have all the answers", but my point is, rather, "I'm asking the right questions".

Link 1: The Philosophy of Stupidity: Video Games vs. Books vs. Reality.

Link 2:

Thursday 3 January 2019

Highlights of my latest attempt to convince "Ask Yourself" to be LESS RACIST.

"Ask Yourself" is the name of a (vegan) youtuber who has been accused of racism many times; after discussing his views at length with him directly (and cordially) I made many attempts to encourage him to address the allegations/rumors against him —and this is partly because I know, directly, that they are not baseless allegations/rumors (he has made many, many statements that outsiders correctly view as racist).  Here are some highlights from my last/latest attempt to encourage him to be less racist, via Facebook message (these are only messages from myself to him, none vice-versa, as I would not violate his privacy).

Tuesday 1 January 2019

Vegan Activism and/or/as Humanitarian Work.

[Reply to a question from a viewer.]
I can make a video in response to this question,  but mebbe you should reply to a few further emails.
Please note that if/when I make a video in reply I will render you anonymous (so feel free to mention the particular job-qualifications/education you have here in this email: I will not repeat the details in a video response to it… I'll make them vague enough that the advice could apply to anyone / any number of people).
There is a major, implicit problem in your email:
(1) You say that you have no job (no current career-path or ambition).  That's fine.  That's not a problem "in itself".
(2) You then talk about vegan activism.
(3) Is the point, implicitly, that you want #2 to be a substitute for #1?  Do you want to try to make vegan activism your source of income and primary/only career?