Possibilities, Principles and People.

Hi,

I've just returned from my Bi-weekly appointment at the job centre to sign on. Whilst there a very kind lady with whom I had met a number of times had picked out a few leaflets she thought might be useful and helpful to me, since I've now been out of work for 225 days, and she knows of my qualification levels and background etc.

It was a leaflet for the Army Reserves. In which one is allowed to complete 200+ days in each year with no adverse effects to ones job search benefits. It's good money, and in my younger days I enjoyed it.

It made me think. (no surprises there eh?)

A bit of History..

Some time ago after I'd left regular service and nursing, I chatted with a friend who is in the army reserve and who more or less offered that i could rejoin my old unit (back when i was a part time soldier it was called the TA) However, given the history I have with the army, trans, etc I was at that time somewhat reticent.

But what of now?

The lovely lady in the the job centre was looking at the financial angle, and to be honest its fair point. I'm very strapped for cash, and AR could solve that issue.

However. Back in 1995 when I first walked through the gates of my old TA unit, I wasn't there for money. I was an idealist. I believed in the goodness of the British Army, the UK and its mission to bring british values and common sense to situations around the globe.

Yeah yeah I can all hear you laughing already.

Nowadays I'm not so sure if I actually believed that or just never really questioned the stuff I'd been lead to believe from an early age. As a young 'un i was hungry for success, and affluence, I wanted to make a difference, do something worthwhile and interesting, and have a ton of fun whilst doing so. I was once asked by an officer during basic training why I had joined the medics:

"To patch up the holes made by other regiments, Sir"

It made him chuckle and we all got an early finish for that. 

Life in uniform has taken me to Germany, Iraq, France, Cyprus, Gibraltar, and Wales. I've moved around, been moved around and done some pretty cool stuff.

But was it Fun? Difficult question to answer that one. I'll fall back on a description of my one and only operational tour, that I coined some years back.

Hours of boredom, punctuated by seconds of shear terror, 

but made possible by many moments of laughter.

The people were and are the best part of my experience in uniform. But theres the rub. people were also the worst part, and remain the most unpredictable. 

My experiences in life have lead me to become more of a realist than an idealist these days. I am now aware that some rules are applied, and others not, whilst still others are applied when and if the situation demands, in something of an interpretive manner. All of which have varying moral significance.  So what of this idea of joining the AR? 

Well, I still believe wearing a military uniform is something one doesn't do purely for money. "why" is a more pertinent question than if it were say, part time at tescos's.  So if I was to look at rejoining there would have to be some other reason. 

I am a very different person to that 20 year old kid who first walked into the barracks. Not just in the obvious sense of trans stuff, but also due to 22 years of accumulated experience and "knowledge" (whatever that might be). My notions of ethics, politics, humanity, nationality plus all manner of other things lead me to question whether a military uniform might not button up just little too tight over so many opinions and questions. I have little time for autocracy, or "badge fights" so the likelihood is high I would run into many conflicts. 

I no longer "believe" in the innate common sense of the British way, or its lauded values. That Britain is long gone, if it ever actually existed. What we have now is ...something else. 

"Why" are the AR looking for people? Well one can suggest that its due to the redundancy and cuts the military have endured over the recent years. The organisation's own people have been very much short changed, after having committed much more to the "job" than the average employee might otherwise.  Thus, it feels somewhat mercenary to jump back in when others have been pushed out, and quite frankly, theres no trust between those in the uniform and the politicians that decide their fate at present. The oft quoted military covenant as it were. All the management stuff i've considered academically over the past year points to it being a can of worms in a shit storm of incompetence. 

But there's more to it than that. If I do not believe in what the British Army currently stands to protect, in the corporate sense, then were I to once more step into uniform, that would be merely for personal gain. As Kant might suggest, the maxim upon which that action is based could be judged as somewhat immoral. 

Or in other words, sacrificing my principles and what little idealism I have left purely for financial rewards. Thats the very definition of selling out. 

Don't misunderstand me. The British Army, as an instrument of UK diplomacy, still has its place. it's just that on balance, I believe there's no longer a place for me within it's ranks. Those who consider philosophy and questions of that nature are in general looking at the meanings in and of life. The conclusions I've reached lead me to believe the meaning of mine now lies in another direction. 

What that direction may be we shall have to discover via other means. 

It's ironic that some of the very things my time in uniform taught me are now the same things keeping me out of that same uniform. 

Sarah 

The basics of - Morality & Ethics part 3

Recently I've been pondering a thought.

Is "vested interest" and what is deemed "appropriate" replacing the human progression towards "universal good"?

Universal good in this context being, opportunity, parity, education, prospects, happiness, and the access to sufficient means to provide for ones self and ones family.

It kinda ties into the 3rd part of my philosophical mini series:

Applied Ethics.

Consider the theatre of politics. Very often lobby groups will push their agenda and may, via quiet meetings with various people, agree to support certain other agenda's or goals - IF their own needs are met. This in essence is the very spirit of collaborative working and compromise, but the driver, or "maxim" to use Kant's expression, is merely a vested interest in a certain type of outcome.

Arguably an immoral use of a system.

BUT if that lobby group happens to be trans rights, or funding for pre natal hospital care, or women's access to health care, or ACLU, the Gun lobby, Oil industry, even evangelical groups etc, then people will make various decisions regarding the morality of the lobbying process based on the cause that is being lobbied for.

Me for instance, I'd suggest trans rights would be a "good cause" but judging by the comments section in the lower third of the internet, I'm sure many would disagree. The reasoning behind a decision as to the morality of a given goal or methodology could be the application of the consequential, or maybe duty bound theories.

For example I believe it (trans rights) an ethical cause because the outcome of success would see an improvement in peoples lives, and improvement in their access to the universal goods listed above. An opponent might disagree on religious or scientific grounds, since they subscribe to a view that the concept of "trans" isn't a legitimate way of being and thus to promote it is ethically wrong, since its harmful in wider sense, regardless of the consequences of such a view point to a given indivudal.

Of course I am trans. ( Or, if your an opponent of that concept, you would have to accept that I at least believe myself thus, even were you to disagree) So does that place me in the the vested interest category? You betcha it does. Does that undermine my arguments? No, only my perceived (and actual) impartiality.

That issue of impartiality is the central reason for my preference to look at the trans issue through the lens of anthropological and philosophical thought, rather than the reverse, which is to perceive everything in life through the lens of my vested interest in the trans question. If (some of) the arguments made by the trans community on its own behalf cannot stand up to structured critical scrutiny, they are thus proven as bad arguments. That fact doesn't change, regardless of how I feel about the underlying wider context.

It's small though signiifcant effort on my part to "balance the books" as it were.

Back in my nursing days I often considered the use of the word "appropriate" in the medical context. Seldom would you hear  "right", "wrong" or "good" "bad" used in the context of an action pertaining to a patients care.

The "most appropriate treatment" was the universal phrase.

Yet this, like many things is open to interpretation. Appropriate for whom? The establishment? The patient? The family? The wider society?

This "appropriate argument" is raging in America at the present with regard to not just trans issues, but a whole swathe of the population for whom it is deemed "inappropriate" by some to provide the basics of what we in the UK have come to expect of a healthcare system.

The ACA was America's first foray for many years into addressing its healthcare access disparity. Yet still some people wanted to pull it down, presumably for their own vested interests rather than the common of access to a universal good. (health)

After all, History will record that it was postulated and set up by a black guy. Certain sections of  todays America simply won't stand for that. Nor the idea that "an underserving poor" can access health care that "they pay for". Both premises are of course open to fairly stringent rebuttal, yet  a significant number of people still cling to these types of "moral" viewpoints.

I read recently of the case of a poorly baby girl. Again this is in America. She was denied treatment for a minor, yet potentially serious condition. One easily sorted within todays modern medical world.

The reason for the denial of health care to this infant? Her parents were Lesbian and the Dr objected to treatment on the basis of religious moral objection to the parental lifestyle.

Consider the hypocratic oath: written by Hippocrates, in ancient greek times, circa 300BC (damn those clever greeks again!) A modern version of which is shown below:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

Consider those lines of the text in bold. The doctor in question cited "religious objections". Not to the treatment, but to the actions of a family member of the patient. 

Religious/ethical exceptions do apply in the UK and US. To cases of abortion for example. However the essential difference here is that in the case of abortion, medical personnel object to the action and/or proceedure they are being asked to perform, and not an extraneous factor that is irrelevant to the treatment of the patient. 

Duty based theories of right and wrong, such as those derived via a literal interpretation of some of the Christian teachings, would suggest this Dr "may" have a case. However, those same arguments would preclude her from treating people who are Bisexual, polyamorous, or eat shell fish and wear mixed fibre cloth. (Leviticus) Thus it would seem theres an inherent objection present and the  religious argument is brought out when convenient. Where have heard that before? 

Furthermore in taking the hippocratic oath, or subscribing to the broader tenant of it meaning, by virtue of being a Doctor, there is an expectation to put aside personal and moral view points and act "in the interest of the patient" at all times. Clearly the Doctor is in breach of that specific and central premise of being a healer of others. 

Is she therefore demonstrating a fitness of judgment sufficient to the work of a Doctor? You decide. 

It raises an interesting point however. The separation between church and state. Or moreover Church and legislature. Something the USA is again currently wrestling with. Religion is a duty based theory or morality and ethical out come. It presupposes right and wrong actions as prescribed via it's teachings and disregards the outcome of those actions. Law is utilitarian, derived from a branch of consequential theory. Creating either the greatest "happiness" or the least "sadness" for people via prior examination of the potential outcomes of any decision.

It doesn't take much to deduce that the two are in many ways mutually exclusive.

So Applied Ethics is a minefield. Since the answer one gets or seeks, in response to ethical questions depends almost entirely on which ethical model one uses to frame those questions. The unscrupulous will use one or other ethical model to justify their actions in rebuttal of condemnation from those who see things differently.

Philosophers are generally agreed that the existence of human nature is a contentious concept, since it would contravene the free will argument and thus responsibility for our own actions.  But, given all the above, and the contradictory outcomes inherent to differing views of what it means to be/do good or bad, it it puts me in mind of Moral Relativism.

The first law of Einstein's theory of relatively suggested that "everything will be measured in relation to Something else"

And so it is with Ethics. judgments cannot exist in a vacuum. They must be compared to something, be it history, or examples of another viewpoint.  To say Morality is relative, in as much as it shifts with time and perception, is true enough. After all what was once viewed as immoral is now not, and what was once viewed as moral is not now so. The two major examples in recent times being homosexuality and Slavery. Of course there are some who still condemn homosexuality on the basis of they preferred moral framework, yet that stance carries all the legitimacy of an opinion, if not backed up by reason.

So, to conclude my mini series on ethics and the morality of actions, thoughts and intent. I will once again revisit a paraphrasing of the words of Dr John Corivino, for I cannot put it any better. (I hope he will forgive me the small change)

---------------------------

I'm not suggesting to you "don't make moral judgements",

I'm asking to make sure you have reasons for the moral judgements that you make. 

To put yourself in someone else shoes, before you judge them. 
Not to Judge someone on how they live and love, but on whether they Live and love.

----------------------------

Sarah.

So, "The basics of" - Morality & Ethics part 1

Hello all you lovely people of the world.

It has been a while since the first part of my discussion of "The basics of philosophy" by Nigel Warburton, In writing this the second instalment, looking at right and wrong, I've decided to split the subject into 3 parts.

1) Theoretical models of morality
2) Meta Ethics
3) Application

Otherwise you would need about 6 hours to read a massive amount of text in one single blog entry that probably wouldn't do the subject justice and would very likely leave you with square eyes and a scrambled brain!

Regular readers will have noted a pervasive thread of ethical discourse in my recent blogs, and obviously that's because all my thoughts about the application of these concepts inevitably seep into other writings when trying to make any given point. Also just in case you were wondering, the terms "Ethical" and "Moral" are often used interchangeably. Ethics is the study of that which makes things right or wrong, and is also occasionally called "Moral philosophy".

So, to recap and clarify some the ethical models that I have referenced in recent Articles

Duty based theories:

i Christian -judaeo tradition ethics

Religious views of morality are by design dependent on the teachings of the religion in question. Most - though not all - religions suggest an all powerful creator being. That being's will is said to be supremely good, therefore by extension anything deemed as "good" by that being must be morally and ethically sound.

This argument has two defining elements:

Firstly, It presupposes the existence of the supreme being which as you'll have seen in my first article in this series is itself open to philosophical question and scrutiny.

Secondly this approach is suggestive that actions are either "good" or "bad" irrespective of the consequences of those actions.

Religious deity based morality also invites the question, "Is what a deity defines as good actually good because they say it to be so, or do they say it is so, merely because a given action is already good?"

Dependent on ones point of view on this last question, It can lead to a some very odd actions being deemed to be "moral" or conversely it reduces the "all powerful deity" to a being subject to a higher power, that of predetermined and separate laws of ethical and unethical action.

ii Kantian ethics

Emmanuel Kant took a view that it was ones duty to act in a moral way. He posed the question "what is a moral action?" As a result he devised things called Maxims, which he defined as the "thought behind the action" what we today might call a motivation. Crucially Kant devolved this process from any emotional input. It is a purely rational thought mechanism.

This is useful since it can distinguish between identical actions that have very different maxim's and thus may be on opposite sides of the moral argument.

Consider a scenario where you discover an injured person by the side of the road. You may decide to help them, and the outcome would therefore be beneficial to the person.

However this result can be achieved via two Maxim's:

"Help those in need", or "Help those in need and you shall be rewarded"

Arguably the second one is a less moral version of the first, since it predisposes personal gain from what is, at least outwardly, an apparently self-less act. Thus the action is not entirely driven by a sense of duty.

Kant sets out his version of categorical imperatives, or rules if you will, that suggest a framework on which to hang judgment of our actions in the moral sense, chief amongst them being:

"Treat other people as ends in themselves, never as means to an end" 

Which roughly fits with a more commonly heard christian tradition ethic in todays language of:

"Do unto others as you have them do to you"

The main criticism of Kant's theory is that it can of course be demonstrated to be used with very immoral maxims, and in some ways doesn't really tell us what we should do, just how to judge what we might. There are also moral dilemma's where some immoral acts based on breaking a maxim might lead to a moral outcome. For example, not telling a gunman where his target is, if you actually do know that information. This goes against "You should always tell the truth" but may in effect save someones life. "The lesser of two evils..." so to speak. 

Consequentialist theory

This problem with Kant's view of morality brings us nicely onto the next ethical model. That of consequence. Consequentialism, as the name implies, looks at the outcomes of actions to determine the nature of whether that action is moral or not. The best known of these is utilitarianism. The underpinning principle of good moral action in this case is defined as "that which brings the greatest good to the greatest number of people"

It is a system that very broadly encompasses much of the legal systems of the western world. Since rule based utilitarianism could be said to be a version of "law" by which people live their lives.

However. As has been discussed in much of my recent writings, pure application of this method does lead to under representation of the minority groups of society, Since by virtue of their being in the minority they will always be disadvantaged in terms of that defining principle. Plus, there is the ever present question of where does one draw the line's when considering actions that are good for one group but evidently bad or questionable for another.

One way to address this is to apply Negative utilitarianism. Basing ones actions on the outcome that produces the least amount of suffering rather than the greatest amount of a universal good, (happiness)

Both of these have limitations, and still bring up situational moral dilemmas. Also there are problems of weighing one action against another and the possible justification of immoral actions based on the idea of the greater good. (For example, how many times has that argument been used as a reason for going to war?)

Virtue based theory.

Rising from a study of Aristotle's Nicomachean ethics, Virtue theorists considered the question,

"How should one live their life?

The answer was to cultivate the virtues, and thus "flourish", leading a successful and prosperous life. This you might think is very similar to the Kantian ethics version of a Maxim, which it is, but with one critical difference. Virtue theorists included the emotional aspect of human intention. 

Bringing emotion into a central role allowed discussion of things like compassion, generosity, and charity. It raised the issue of why we might act to benefit our fellow humans from one of mere duty to one of empathy, and being able to appreciate the consequences of their situation through a form of kin ship with them. 

It encourages one to look for the similarities between different peoples, actions, viewpoints etc, and base ones actions from those observations.

The criticism of virtue based theory is simply, "what is to be classed as a virtue?" There is still much discussion around what to include in a list of virtues, since "That which allows one to flourish" is open to interpretation. 

Additionally people change, their inherent tendencies altering over time with experience. Thus one might start off with the virtue of generosity, but having been conned in the  past by an immoral individual, reassess that view in later life. There is also the consideration of "Human Nature" and arguments as to what that is, or if it exists. 

These are three of the major ethical theories that exist. There are others, and this page here gives a very brief breakdown of each, including those discussed here. 

One slightly confusing thing however, that some of you might have noticed, is that in all of the above  there still isn't a clear definitional of what is "right" or "wrong" in the moral context. 

To answer that it is necessary to study and theorise on the ethical theories. A field known a "Meta Ethics" 

And that we will leave till part 2. 

Sarah 

Uncharted waters, but dangerous?

In todays blog: Politics. So if you're of delicate constitution(al mindset) .. you've been warned! :-)

So, Scotlands first minister is going to ask for a Section 30 if she gets the backing of the Scottish parliament.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn suggests a vote should go ahead but quotes a labour party position at odds with that statement.

Mrs May is unlikely to want this to happen (if it does), before Brexit, but then effective, binding and lasting brexit negotiations can't really be concluded without the Scottish question being settled.

It would appear safe to say then that we live in changing and unpredictable times. The once solid generational truths now can no longer be taken for certainties

What is Democracy?

Scotland voted via referendum convincingly to remain in the EU, yet narrowly to remain in in the UK. The UK as a whole, via the same process voted narrowly to leave the EU.

This then is the conundrum of modern day politics. To do "the will" of one "people" one must be seen to "ignore" the will of other "people". On the one hand there is just cause to ask the Scottish people what they wish for their future generation, yet in doing so there is great risk to life as we have known it on these isle's for generations.

To deny the Scots a say given the monumental change in the political equation since they were last asked dooms them to follow aboard the lone ship of brexit, not as willing crew, but unwilling stowaways bound to the ships fate but somewhat powerless to direct its course since the tiller is firmly held in the resolute hands of Westminster, and they haven't seen fit to tell even the first class passengers the destination.

It seems to me, as the casual observer, that the wielders of the reigns of power are now at odds. Each of them serving the more local members of their support base. This isn't in and of itself a bad thing. However due to timing and to some extent co-incidences that one might call synchronicity, it's resulted in a perfect storm where each of those "local" interests are now mutually exclusive.

So how scared or concerned are people? Well....again this mostly comes down to local concern. In many cases wholly justifiable. "will my benefits cease" can I still get EU assistance for my business, will my job be secure?.. can I afford a bed/food/house/car/bills (delete as appropriate)

How does this current state of affairs happen, you may ask?

It seems that as a wholly self benevolent individualistic human nature marches towards "freedom" and it's inevitable "triumph" in failing to learn its own limitations, so the community & social bonds of benevolence for others and shared endeavour for moral purpose that held together generations before us continue to become weakened, stretched, taught and thus begin to fracture.

Then of course other bonds take their place, ones of shared lineage, place of birth, of world view and (again) self interest. Accent, language and borders, us and and them become talking points. We begin slowly to "other" those who don't share our immediate needs, and who see the world as a different array of colours to our own perception. None of this occurs maliciously of  course, it all benevolent, well meaning and peaceful. (ish)

Until someone arrives to take advantage. That's game changer right there.

So, am I "for" a 2nd Scottish referendum?

I do believe if the first minister gets her approval then Westminster "should" "allow" it. For to do otherwise would delegitimise the narrow voting margin by which brexit is touted as the will of the people. (since it was similar narrow margin percentages involved in the Scottish independence vote) It would send a message that the "will of the people must be done but some peoples will is more important than others, thus only the right will counts"

That's tantamount to hypocrisy on a huge monumental scale.

However thats problematical in itself since Scotland voted in the EU referendum as part of the "whole" UK and it's the statistical representation of a part of that demographic not the whole picture that would be used to justify the second independence argument in this case.

Such is the nature of referendums and statistics. They tell you little beyond numbers.

Do I wish for Scottish independence. Well, I'm not Scottish. So my knowledge is limited on a first hand basis. What I can say is should it happen, oh lord what change that will be...

Finally, none of this is happening in isolation. I mentioned a perfect storm of synchronicity, consider the global moves to more of the  "me" and "us not them" rhetoric and you have at best worrisome rhetoric and at worst the prelude to dissolution of the world as we've known it for the last near  century. A dissolution that will not be without it's pains.

If one subscribes to the writing of plato, there exists a staged system of levels to human societal development.

Aristocracy - This regime would be ruled by a philosopher king, and thus is grounded on wisdom and reason

Timocracy - subverts the  wisdom of a  aristocracy for vested self interest disguised as public service.

Oligarchy - An extension of the  timocracy that elevates the rich into positions of power even if  incompetent

Democracy - Freedom is seen as the supreme good but becomes a form of slavery. Democratic man wants to buy stuff with his money, and is somewhat self obsessed with unnecessary material-istic wants.

Tyranny - Things degenerate  more into a chaotic lack of discipline the result of which is that pursuit of  power is all consuming, the power that is needed to preserve order.

The rise of the "alt right" and other nationalistic & not wholly morally motivated political entities with seemingly fractured relationships within the US, Europe, and the UK make me wonder if we - humanity - are perhaps walking, very morally and benevolently but none the less blindly, towards a tyrannical world state in global politics. One where "the government" knows best, and the unquestioning populace acquiesces to the will of those "in power" and 'with power" so that what passes for "order" can be maintained. Of course that's because I live in an area of the world where this isn't (yet) the case, for some that tyrannical vision is already their lived truth.

All done in the name of "the people" of  course. But the question remains "which ones?"

Still don't forget, even in the face of all this our greatest strength is one derived from our greatest weakness. Self belief/self delusion.

So lets stay stubbornly optimistic, we might just need that

Sarah .

What say you now of Democracy, Wisdom, Truth and Knowledge?

This is very quick, short blog, in the writing of which i find myself quite frankly at a loss for words to adequately express my utter dismay at the drastic turn of events that the world has  seen in less than 2 weeks.

Trump America "officially puts Iran on notice, for  firing a missile, AFTER the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION needlessly closes  its borders  with Iran and  its  main sphere of  influence countries. 

link to the full 44 second video here...

"On notice?"

What does that mean? Telegraph media net had this to say..

The exact meaning of being “on notice” wasn’t defined, but Trump already is on record as being critical of the various promises, payments and commitments made to Iran by both the U.S. and the United Nations as “being weak and ineffective.”

I had a very quick internet search for "on notice" in the same vein that "representation" has a strong diplomatic message when referring to political language. I am sad to say I can find no reference to the term at this time, so i'm going to conclude that this is something of a "Trumpian" truth and very much a knee jerk PR related statement. However, watch this space. 

Its also worth noting that the USA and IRAN are both still bound by treaties, despite what The Trump sputters in outrage into his evening coffee, thus at this stage it is the USA not IRAN that would be in major breach if they start hostilities. 

All in all we've figuratively taken a few steps closer to midnight... and that after 30'seconds just recently... 

see the link here...

...with any other individual incumbent in the Whitehouse this might be seen as unfortunate. With The trump its down right terrifying. America may yet rue the day....

As ever stay vigilant and keep it  #stubbornlyoptimistic

Sarah 

The blank page....

Hi world.

I'm sat at the computer, a blank page in front of me. I am wondering just exactly how to put my thoughts and opinions into words on the screen.

How does one articulate ones observations, concerns and fears, with a nod to critical thinking, objectivity and solid research.

Also, I confess a pervasuive sinking feeling. The title of this blog is "Stubbornly Optimistic". Yet I think you'll forgive me if I say that currently one has to be uncommonly stubborn to be all that optimistic regarding world events. The entirely justified, yet unending stream of negative news spewing forth regarding The Trump's actions is demoralising.

I asked myself if that is because of my own political opinions and beliefs. In truth perhaps so, although thats also an over simplification.

Take the latest direct action by the Trump. Blocking ingress of people from certain countries for various time periods. The countries concerned being ones in which the residents have not instigated any succesful terrorist action in or on America. So, even if one agrees this is the right action, it is against the wrong countries.

Is it the right action? Well where does the actual real threat of terrorism come from? Not from the refugees, thats well known. So even were the action against the "right" countries it's proven to be ineffective via already held data.

So, I refer back to my last few blogs. Is The Trump an idiot or a genius? We know he is fical to say the least but one has to ask why these countries. If not for security, as the "alternative justification" would suggest, then why?

I had suggested that it may be a republican christian fundamentalist policy enacted by proxy, so they can distance themselves as a party from political fall out. Allowing The Trump to take the fall as it were. However that doesn't hold up. Pence, has previously tweeted....

Pence may be a fully paid up Christian fundamentalist and have his own litany of faults, but he is a politician. Very much not a loose cannon. It would however seem his views are flexible to political expediency. The pursuit of power, perhaps for entirely legitamate reasons from his POV, may ultimately be via a means that he comes to regret. (especially if it leads to war with Iran....now thats a proper OOPSIE) 

The civil right act has outlawed discrimination based on race in the US since 1964. But here's another angle. Last year we saw racial tensions rise. We saw black and white Americans killing each other  based predominantly on their skin colour. 

Ww have also had 8 years of  an erudite, educated and liberal, but also black US President. There are some in America who only see the 4th item on that list as anything of consequence.

"We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all of our people."

Donald J Trump...

So the current immigration block. Is it race discrimination dressed up as security? The alt right links that Trump had (has?) do rather suggest a racial motivation. His former CEO Steve Bannon now holds a position in the administration as chief advisor no less, and a high level security post. based on what experience? Ideology?

It begs the question. Who was Trump talking about when he referenced "our" people? Not "American people" but "our" people? 

Whoever holds The Trumps ear, be it Pence, or Bannon, will shape the "tone" of American domestic events for good or ill. Latterly we haven't seen much of the former. 

However...

The ACLU just  gave us the first and perhaps most significant silver lining. Trump is facing battle in the courts. In congress, and on the streets, ordinary Americans with the legal skill sets are working pro bono to arrange the freeing of those detained. Most significantly legal action has been taken and succeeded  stating this action by The trump is unconstitutional. Effectively the law courts reversed the president's order. 

America is slowly turning it gaze inward, and if not yet at war with itself,  is seemingly having some pointed internal discussions.  

The second "possible" sliver lining came from an unexpected direction. Teresa May. Seemingly attempting to reign in the worst of The Trumps hyperbole. I say "possible" as it is early days and there may yet be other motives behind the PM's apparent eagerness to meet with the new president's office. It is fair to say that the UK and the USA do need to cultivate a working relationship, regardless of the personalities in office. Though quite how symbiotic this one is likely to be is unclear at this point. 

Perhaps the most Stubbornly Optimistic observation of recent days is this. 

President he maybe, but The Trump is still merely one man. Granted he has a team of like minded  group think behind him. However there are far more people in influential positions willing to oppose his transgressions than extend them. Ordinary people too, alternative communication accounts springing up in answer to the national parks twitter shut down....

Alternative twitter accounts....

The more People in all walks of life mobilise, speak out and act, the weaker he will become. That may be scant comfort, given that the world will keep spinning whilst that happens, with Russia and others dropping into at the power vacuum whilst the US has it eyes elsewhere... but in the current climate it is a comfort that I for one will take. 

The Trump may yet make America Great Again. However I doubt he envisaged that he and the white nationalist agenda would the common enemy that brought them to that end. 

The process however may be far from pretty, or peaceful. 

Lows, Laughs and Legality.

Oh Dear.

I feel Golum's pain, truly.

Tonight I had hoped to write something that was a little more "uplifting" than my last article. After all it was, as one reader rather succinctly put it, "Bleak".

But.....

America's Trump continues to reverberate around the globe, and the smell doesn't get any sweeter.

Pipelines being built, environmental protections reversed. Climate change monitoring has its funding frozen. Suposedly "The Trump" has won awards for "Environmentalist Trump".... I'll just  leave this  here...

link to Trumps Environmental awards evidence.

Soon theres going to be line of merchandising dolls no doubt to go with the cinematic drama...

President Trump (Certified Free from vested interests)
Environmentalist Trump (Including awards certificate - missing from box)
Businessman Trump (with 6 certified bankruptcy proofs. Please send off the coupons enclosed for the tax returns..we'll get them back to you honest)
Making America great again Trump..(with free red hat)
Truthful Trump (production cancelled due to lack of ...well.... truth)
And of course not forgetting....
 LGBT Trump with free Mike pence Doll and & day pass to a reparative therapy Spa of your choice.

(All made under license in China)

In short the uplifting article i was hoping to pen this evening has taken a battering.... However all is not lost.

In the face of what some might dress as outright lies, but other's recognise as bone fide "alternative facts". The day after this infant(ile) American administration began it's long 4 year march to ignominy and ridicule, we have a refreashing dose of law, order and good old fashioned common sense from the UK Supreme court.  

Due Process. Love or loathe Brexit, the proper process and legal frame works must be adhered to. A fact "The Trump" would be wise to pay heed to.  The UK parliament must now debate the issue and satisfy the UK constitutional requirements. Proof that, even now, no man, (or woman) is above democracy or the rule of law. 

I hope you'll forgive another Tolkien indulgence as i quote everyone's favourite Grey Wizard 

"There are other forces at work here besides the will of evil - and that is an encouraging thought" 

So. What to bring as a counter foil to the bleak and dreary? 

How about a tribute to a funny guy, whilst poking fun a the whole European "thing" circa 1939 style.

Allo Allo ran for a good number of years when i was a kid and even though some of the humor has dated a little, the cheeky take on the serious business of occupied France in the war complete with dodgy accents and terrible french from English agent come Police officer "crabtree" still makes me Chuckle...

But I'm gonna leave the final word to Ronnie Barker. When boxed in, be it figuratively or literally, there's three things to remember:

So it's goodnight from me...and its goodnight from him 

Till next time on #stubbornlyoptimistic

The faithful Navigator....

Hello! Tis Sunday again.

What a busy week! Family stuff saw me buzzing unexpectedly down and back up the A1 a few times,  and other stuff just keeps happening in life's usual random way.

It's those random things that I'm thinking of as I write this. For the usual mundane reasons of keeping a roof over my head etc I'm applying for various jobs whilst simultaneously completing my management diploma, and embarking on an NVQ assessors award. Being a few decades old, and having been and done a couple of things, plus holding a fistful of papers that detail my skill set, one would think that this isn't such a big issue. I'm not looking for rocket science jobs, just something that enables me to do the other stuff I've set myself as goals. The usual time/money equation.

So. I recently went for a job at a well known retailer. They deal in bikes amongst other things. Online process? check. Telephone interview? check. Store chat and interview? check.

"It'll take around 2 weeks for a decision so we will let you know"

24 hours later an email arrives in my inbox.

"Blah blah .....other candidates more closely match the skill set were looking for.....blah blah..."

Hmm. ok.

Fine we've all been unsuccessful in interviews, I get that, but in this instance given the yawning gap between what they required and my qualifications and abilities, with the later very much being in the more accomplished end of the scale, I took issue on a number of points.

Of course after a brief escalation it just gets farmed up to a level where Goliath looks at David and just goes. .."yeah? whatever, what you gonna do about it anyhow?"

Now I'm not really fussed. The job was there, it was a possible earner short term, I've not lost anything. Or so I thought.

It occurred to me that this has happened before. Military, Nurse, National retail competitor. All have made subjective decisions regarding me, and thus I find myself at this point in my life, very much on the "have not" side of the afluence and resource see/saw. Seemingly where I've been, what I've done and what I can do, being outweighed by other more nefarious consideration of "what I am"

Now, I'm not about to subscribe to the "woe is me" mantra and blame the world for where my life has arrived at this point. It MY life, thus it's mine to live, as are the consequence of any decisions. In life, action and reaction are ever present, and just because the reaction is perhaps "wrong" does not infer any fault on the action. It does however require one to learn. If you continue to take that action then one must expect a reaction similar to those that have gone before, and develop a way to deal with it. (Societal change is of course another response but that aint exactly a 5 minute job now is it?)

Of course, I'm alluding to the fact that all these circumstances occurred AFTER I came out to various people as trans. Interviewing as a trans person is ...interesting. Before that point I found doors opened, opportunities were presented, and to an extent I was taken at face value for what my resume and life experience indicated. After all, an eloquent white, middle class, male, former soldier is often a positive first impression.

However an eloquent white, middle class, formerly male soldier, not so much. So what am I to do?

Option one ... get angry at the world and curl up into a ball ..screaming you're all fuckers ...
Option two ... revert back to denying myself and fitting in with inherent risks of a depressive return to a very dark mental space
Option three ... Own that shit.... say ok, so you want me to re prove what I've already proven? ...fine its your funeral fuckers... accept it's gonna be a rough ride and roll with it.

Those of you who've read my trans centric posts may know already that I don't purport to understand all this trans stuff, just some of it. What I can say is that despite the slings and arrows of, shall we say,  "discriminatory" behaviour  I find myself smiling. Smiling on the walk back from the village shop cos the sky was burning orange at sunset, Smiling at the thought that for today at least, I can put the heating on. Enjoying a contented feeling as I listen to the rain outside and grinning at a soggy office cat as he comes back home most disgruntled at being soggy. All this despite the situation in which I find myself. Why is that?

Because I realised something after this latest rejection

I thought I'd lost my confidence. For a time the fear of rejection staying my hand in applying for other jobs that I know I can do. For a while i didnt apply for any after this incident. Then it hit me on that walk back from the shop, I still believe in me for I have something the detractors and nay sayers and discriminatory types don't.....

40 years of living as myself through some interesting times. They don't have that knowledge of who, what, and why I am where I am. They don't "know" me and thus the rejection is a reflection on their lack of insight rather than any meaningful reflection on myself as either a person or a professional. Not applying because they may not like what they see is the wrong mindset, trying to second guess them rather than confirming where I myself stand. So let them choose, for the choice is their's to make, nothing more or less than that.

Of course any sane individual will reflect on a process and learn from it. Honest reflection is a key skill in anyone purporting to be self aware. It is fair to say I am not blameless in my current circumstance, and on reflection it perhaps wasn't my best interview ever. But regardless, other's judgments of me are not my burden to bear. They are however rocks in the sea of trepidation through which we all sail. They must be navigated through, just like any other, so that we arrive where we intend. Curling up into a ball and letting go of the tiller will result in a shipwreck more surely than anything else.

But what of option two? cant you just "fit in"? Well the short answer is "been there done that" and it lead here....So no. I'm not gonna try and "fit in" I know innately because of my little smiles, and quiet contentment in life that this path is "a good thing". The old version of me, faced with the these challenges, would - and did - get very confrontational, a personality trait I was never fond of.  These days, even though I still have a temper (who doesn't?) I'm much more chilled out, & maybe a little wiser .. perhaps. This is a Good Thing.

Taking option three however does require something that is at times a little tricky to maintain in the face of such blatant "no platforming" of a frankly pretty decent skill set. Faith. I don't mean the kneeling chanting praying kind. I mean the kind of faith that lets you believe that somewhere behind all those rocks is a safe port. A place where you can again be all you can be, and where others see that for what it is. Faith that your direction is true, your professional compass calibrated, and that you will, if you remain #stubbornlyoptimistic, eventually find that which you seek.

So, my fellow Seafaring readers, be you Trans, black, Hispanic short tall, Male, Female, NB, LGB or Pirate, whatever "it" is that people judge in you, just navigate past that shit, for in the end rocks are worn down by the sea, and that results in safe, smooth waters for all.


Your faithfully...
;-)

The difference between Weeds and Grass.

Today I'm sat at my desk surrounded by candlelight. Its pitch black outside and the pasta is bubbling away on the stove for tea. The weather is pretty grim, with the remains of the latest storm blowing through the UK. All in all a cosy winters evening, with a roof, 4 walls, some heat and some food. Very much the metaphorical billionaire if ever there was one.

Like many people this week I've been watching. Watching the world come to terms with events, and a population come to terms with its choices.

Of course most eyes are pointed towards the Western horizon. What will the new president elect do? and what will the consequences be?

However. Rather than watch him, I've been paying attention to the reaction of those who both agree and disagree with some of the things that have been said over the past few months.

The most notable was the full page advert from the ACLU calling out the president elect and warning that if he try's to enact much of his rhetoric, they're gonna be waiting in the law courts.

ACLU twitter here...

Of course he has chosen rather less than liberal law makers for his new government, but that's really just what one would expect. Over here in the UK Brexit was assumed in some quarters to be a done deal with merely a signature and a rubber stamp required to seal its activation via article 50. However the rule of law and the weight of legal proceedings and precedent came to bear, and thus parliament must now debate the issue. 

Ironically therefore it is "the system" that may yet scupper the march of the right wing agenda, and other less savoury opinions of the human race, into a place of prominence and influence. It's been said that with a Trump America we now more than ever need a Corbyn UK. Or to put it another way, some left wing international politics to buffer the right wing leanings from across the pond. Balance. This would be a good thing perhaps?

Can we hope the media would be an ally in this effort for balance? offering a voice of reason and calm? objective discussion and observation? Here's something that popped up 

See the full video and a write up in the Independent 

Many people took issue with the lower third strap line as inappropriate. However I'd suggest it was wholly in keeping to highlight just how wildly idiotic some of these alt right types are. There's the argument that to give them air time gives them oxygen, for an example from history,  just look at the UK government's years of banning audio from interviews of Shinn Fien leader Jerry Adams. But theres also the simple fact that these hate groups breed on ignorance. Shining the bright light of mass media onto their idiocy and highlighting it as such, as the news anchor did, is the only way the these unsavoury ideas can be brought out into the light of comment decency to shrivel and die upon the alter of reasonable discussion.

The world of entertainment is arguably more influential than the news and main media outlets. We all follow people on twitter etc and thus there are some in that industy who are taking it upon themselves to register opinion on this argument. 

See Liams twitter here ....

World leaders too, they all had some very thinly coded messages for the present elect and those who would seek to roll back the clock to a more oppressive era. However France does have its own national backlash happening at the present. something I'm sure the EU is rightly worried about. 

I don't want to be a naysayer here, but its fairly obvious to see that should France eventually be under the rule of a nationalist government, whilst America pulls its horns in become somewhat isolationist as simultaneously the UK leaves the EU, then foreign policy depts across the globe have their work cut out. It could even be the end of the EU as we have known it for quite some years to come.

However its fair to say that there are other voices at work within these countries, organisations, media and entertainment. "The trump" was fond of using the slogan "drain the swamp". For my part I'd say we now need to "keep the conversation alive" about and with those who dwell at the lower regions of that and other swamps. To not do so is to court disaster, thereby allowing this pond life the status of underdog - and as we all know everyone loves an underdog. That is of course, until it bites. 

I started this "stubbornlyoptimistic" blog title more for personal reasons than anything else. Having lost my job, status, direction, income, influence and motivation, I merely felt it would be nice to have some vehicle for arranging my thoughts. Sharing with the world should it care to glance in my direction, the views of one person amongst many, one blade of grass in a vast field. It serves as a reminder that I will not give in to personal despair. However the more I look at current events and present day changes, the more I realise that an over all stubbornly optimistic approach is needed now more than ever. 

WE need to be that field of grass. One blade can accomplish little but a whole field can support an entire eco system. Every field will have weeds, but that's no reason to cultivate them. We do however need to expose them, "weed them out" and ultimately educate ourselves to produce a better yield from the boundless possibility our human race has to offer. 

So, for now lets keep making our feelings known. Show these "alt right" types that no, they ultimately don't have anything like a valid argument, and above all remain #stubbornlyoptimistic that in the end calmer, saner minds will prevail. 

".......there are other forces at work in this world besides the will of evil, and that is an encouraging thought...." 

Gandalf the Grey. 

On armistice day of all days. ....Sorry America

Ok.

So that happened.

It's taken me two whole days to form the thoughts needed to write this....Sorry America we've dropped the ball.

We now have the type of person chosen as president elect of the American nation that, frankly, were he not born into privilege, opportunity and wealth would be recognised for what he is. Namely a cretinous, misogynistic, self indulgent and narcissistic arse swipe of a human being.

We are familiar with politicians being flawed individuals. That is old hat. But this guy got elected on the strength of bragging about it. Let that sink in for a second. Thousands of ordinary people voted for a person, knowing that he wilfully and gleefully has broken - and will again break - the most basic rules of civilised behaviour.

There's a court case pending of the alleged rape of a then 13yr old girl, now grown. Multiple accounts of inappropriate and frankly disgusting comments towards women. The violent rape of his ex wife.... and other more business related stuff... Just. Digest that. For a moment.

13. Years. Old. Thats not just rape that is fucking near peadophylia for pity's sake!!!!

Now. laying aside the asinine policies of the individual in question for a second, just ask yourself how did we, the human race, get to a point so devoid of the common sense of logic and morality that someone of that character type could get within 100 yrs of the Whitehouse lawn, let alone, with all this as a known quantity, be given the keys to the Oval Office?

Apathy. thats how. The vast majority simply refused to believe it would actually happen, and did not treat the growing threat with the measure of concern it warranted. I count myself amongst that number. It wasn't until the night before that the truth dawned, and I knew he was gonna get in to power.

History will judge his election on many points. His right wing views, his policies and the undoing of all that progressive thinkers have attempted over the last two terms. 8 yrs of work.. gone .. in a single blow struck by the skillful manipulation of the disenfranchised and under informed,  even wilfully ignorant masses.

But that's like arguing which way the horse went after it bolted out the stable, without considering who left the door unbolted to begin with.

Humanity lost the fight long ago, when this creature was deemed worthy of even the merest thought of public office. Our standards have risen to new depths as we mine the rich vein of political capital that can be had from the thirst for change. Not real change of course. Perceived change. Mere shadows and dust, smoke and mirrors. The ever changing bright lights of big telly screens spouting the latest version of the truth that people want to hear. Facebook feeds become tuned to be a mirror of our tastes, reflecting back to ourselves that which we want to see. Government news agencies that cherry pick story after story, edit them and muddy the perception of truth ... and lets not mention the newspaper editors...I mean really?

What's really sad is the vast majority just don't care. As long as big brother, strictly come dancing and the NFL super bowl keep airing on prime time its all just fine and dandy.

Work, home, eat sleep repeat. live in the bubble of self sufficiency .. or at least the perception of it.

America has made a stupid decision, and one based on fear, misinformation and bigotry of that there is no doubt. Perhaps it is true to say Clinton would have been worse, as her husband wasn't great. But that's also a symptom of the issue here isn't it? Women get judged by those who'd vote for a bigot like trump. They get judged in part on their husbands actions & not their own. Wake the fuck up middle America, 1950 called and wants your theology back so they can update it.

Of course the whole issue is much more complex than simple sexism but you get the point. Voting is something of an impassioned activity. You have to care enough to put in the effort to vote. People on the ends of the political spectrum are often the ones that care most, will espouse their views the loudest and thus will be the first to the polls. Therefore if those of us who are more moderate don't bother....... well ultimately.... you get a "Trump like" bad smell in the Whitehouse.

But the story didn't begin with trump. Turkey has seen university lecturers - the educated and educators of society - arrested for disagreement with the government of the day.

Othering of European peoples in their own countries because they look different, or sound vaguely "foreign"... thats happening too and is a symptom of the very wave of opinion that trump has ridden to his current elevated position.

Many decry the likening of these event and systems to pre war Europe as fanciful talk. Safe in the knowledge that the world has "moved on', and that ww2 could "never happen again were all too smart for that"

Well Surprise wankers! look what y'all just did. The oh shit moment was written on many faces. Much like post Brexit. People actually said afterwards, "oh I didn't think it would cause us to leave.... well bugger me what did you think you were voting for?

So there we have it. The smell of America's big trump is gonna pervade it's noxious way around the globe. I only hope we can hold our breath collectively for the 4 yrs. its gonna take to flush the toilet. Cleaning and redecorating the bathroom however,  will take considerably longer.

The guy who's going out of office puts it rather well. He defines the central premise of #stubbornlyoptimistic in his speech on learning of the new president elect.

President Obama's speech, like those of a number of other world leaders on hearing the news, contained messages of unity, of respect. Themes of togetherness and co operation. All things woefully absent in the new president elect and his view of the world as it pertains to him. (I doubt he has a wider view, as I said, too much of a narcissist) 

So, when the dust settles from whatever is to befall us as species from this point onward. I have a proposal. Maybe if we wish to expect the best policies from our elected representatives and leaders, we should ask of them the basic principles of a decent human being first. If we wish to keep thinking people in office, and mitigate the dafter fringes of our species from causing harm, we need to care enough to vote.

Sure disagree on semantics like marriage rights, healthcare or what colour to paint a bathroom door. But healthy disagreement breeds reasonble discussion, discussion leads to decision and action. For this to work one has to assume both parties to be rational decent human beings with a certain respect for others and themselves. ...something this trump is very much isn't. Nor are some of those who support him.

And after whatever we said couldn't happen again is finished, don't leave the shouting and discussion to others. The reasonable human mind often baulks at confrontation. But if we do so collectively the less reasonable take our place. Those people are quicker to shout, to confront, blame and accuse. They are less adverse to breaking laws that shouldn't be broken so will happily break those that should be. (seeing no distinction between) and once the mob is sated and the rabble gone...what then ? 

Would we have made a difference? 

who knows... but by then it'll be too late and a new generation, our sons and daughters, and their kids, will have to pay the price for our collective apathy, lack of wisdom and sheer human stupidity. This world is a beautiful place. I pray this latest and gravest form of humanities' many and varied pollutions doesn't destroy it along with us. 

Today is the 11th of November. A day which those who have been in uniform having perhaps seen the very ugly realities and awful choices of warfare often spend in quite reflection. Oddly and somewhat paradoxically few soldiers who've seen it first hand actualy want war. 

As one who very much shares that view, I look towards America,  observing the things that have been allowed to happen, bringing them as a country to this very point in history.

I'm worried. Are you? 

Grown ups being children being grown ups being children.

Hey internet. Hows it going?

I am in a thoughtful and introspective mood today as I sit here a little after three in the afternoon. A wet somewhat dull Northeastern November day broods outside the windows, still deciding between whether to actually rain or just sulk in a misty kinda foreboding vibe.

Last night I was at our regular D&D game. Some readers may know I've recently gotten into the Dungeons and Dragons 5e games, playing as a result of joining long time friends who played, one of whom is the dungeon master.

For those of you not familiar with the game it basically boils down to each person having a written character on sheets of paper with a number of abilities, and as a group of people we meet the challenges set by the dungeon master, rolling dice and moving through a fantasy world very much like the one Frodo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee inhabit in Tolkien's Lord of the rings.

Now Role playing in a group is funny, as you may have a character with very different traits to you yourself.. loud/quiet/reserved/brash etc etc...so as you can imagine it makes for some funny and amusing interactions, and thus over all creates a communal story telling experience. Escapism if you will.

However. Social interaction between players can often begin to mirror the social interaction in game between characters, or vice verse. And so it was last night. In a nutshell my character was annoyed with another for doing something stupid and putting the whole party needlessly in harms way....(think Gandalf and Peregrine Took in the mines of moria....you'll get the idea...)

Fool of a took

The reaction of the other party to this event was not great, as the impending retaliation reaction was, to put it mildly, as stupidly self serving as their original action that caused the original incident. If you will it became a "pretend dick waving contest" and thus ensued a brief group wide argument though mercifully settled quickly by our party's senior character member and defacto leader.

So... It set me thinking. (what doesn't?) A bunch of grown adults are sat round playing fantasy games, "pretend" stuff. That then gets imbued with real world rules like "thought" "action 'and "emotion" With "consequence" as a result. Very matrix ish in that you then by virtue of the character having been created by real people, some of whom are very highly invested in their characters survival, get a blurring of real person verse character reactions. 

Add in a Human tendency to create character traits in game that we would like in ourselves, strength honour, bravery whatever, and you get a situation where in some cases the characters can do stuff that the real person would like to but can't. Be empathic for example, or stand down a bully, lead or challenge, all this sort of stuff. 

So much is made of the D&D role play and improvisation being a good thing for learning social skills, creating a team ethos and developing a critical thinking mindset. However in this case its been, through no fault of the game, a detrimental influence. 

In real life I am shy of many forms confrontation, always have been. I have been subjected to corporate bullying and a number of unpleasant real world scenarios. (yeah weird huh? a 6 foot former Military type & Former bloke being bullied pre and post social transition.. well yes that happened) It took quite a lot for me to allow the small piece of plastic on the table to act out exactly what I thought she might do. As a person I'm usually the peace maker of sorts. The huge wave of negativity as a result has not only ensured for the time being that the small plastic model doesn't use quite as many of its imaginary abilities in such a group friendly way, but it also dented my real world confidence, since it would appear I miss judged the other player, leading me to second guess my participation and enjoyment levels within the current game. 

Sure it's "just" bits of plastic on a table, its "Just" numbers on a paper But it's also hours of imagination, and pouring through books to find obscure rules. That little bit of plastic and those dice roles begin to mean quite a lot. But isn't that the point? after all if they didn't we wouldn't play would we? Just watch this video from critical role episode 62. At 2hrs:42mins where Laura Bailey playing Vex'halia gets quite irate about her broom...a flying broom that doesn't even exist! Soooo pent up in fact that her real life hubby Travis (bearded large chap top right) looks really really worried he's on the couch again... (apparently when he almost killed her imaginary bear that happened too...) 

So in an effort to try and bring my inane ramblings to a coherent point. We are all in some way the product of our characters, and them of us. The games we play and the things we "pretend" often bleed into our perceived reality.

For the philosophical mindset, where all creation takes place in the mind first before anything physical even gets done, one could say some of those characters are as real as any other that we watch on the big screen. Frodo and Sam, Luke Skywalker, Micheal knight, Luke an Bo, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Merlin, or even Tyrian Lannister. Thinking about them and being invested in their story makes it so. 

So whatever you're playing, watching or doing, be it "real" or "imaginary" Remember the cardinal rule. 

"Don't be a Dick" 

You'll just piss off the DM, and thats reeeeeaally bad....

#Stubbornlyoptimistic