In 2008 I came to a realization about my own internal morality that is subtle but I think might help others, which I call the Secular Imperative:
Because of the phenomenon of hallucination and coincidence, God knows you can never be 100% sure there is or is not a God.
Therefore, God will judge you on your decisions not only by how much you followed God's will, but also by OTHER justifications you found to make your decision.
God is judging you on your ability to make good decisions even when you are not 100% sure of the reality of God.
This means God expects you to find good reasons to do the right thing besides edicts supposedly from God.
Growing up LDS, we say we "know" rather than "we believe." For the LDS God is waiting to hear from you, just barely outside of your peripheral vision, hoping you will start a correspondence with God. The LDS religion is rife with potent mojo: I can tell you story after story about personal experiences that would show why I would be lying if I didn't use the word "know" when I say "I know there is a God."
But here's the problem: how do I know I am not crazy? How do I know have not had hallucinations or experienced some extraordinarily incredible coincidences? But since I actually am very confident that there is a God, I am also confident that God knows that no matter what, I have to entertain some possible chance that I am wrong about God's existence.
Therefore, I am confident that God's view of me and my decisions is in the context of me never being able to be sure if God exists or not. Therefore it is critical for me to have justifications for my decisions that go beyond obedience to "God's will." It is important to God for me to explore why doing something is right or wrong beyond religious justification.
THAT is what I call the "Secular Imperative." Here are two examples:
Word of Wisdom (LDS rules about not drinking, smoking, using illicit drugs, etc.): that stuff is expensive and bad for your health. Nothing epitomizes trying to buy happiness like spending big bucks on happy pills. I am better off without risking some kind of chemical addiction.
Chastity (sex only with one person you are married to): Do I want to complicate my life with affairs? Do I want to spend the money it would take for me to have an affair? Do I want to risk the expenses and isolation of divorce? Do I really want to risk having a child outside of my current marriage? Do I want to have to help some woman decide if she wants an abortion because of my wayward penis? Would I like to risk catching an STD? Has any women ever "made me happy," is that even a fair thing to expect out of a lover? NOPE!
The Secular Imperative is not a disregard for God's advice, nor is it blind obedience to religious edicts. The Secular Imperative is a serious exploration of the reasoning behind God's will by taking a stark inventory of the world God gave us.
I go out of my way to talk to people I don't agree with. And this is not just over minor things, this is over big controversial things such as a lot of the subject matter on this blog - and in fact this blog often refers to some of those conversations. Why? When you find someone you disagree with, you have found the edge of your echo-chamber: if you want to help change someone's opinion, this is your only chance. But most of the time you can't change someone's opinion by arguing with them, right? 100% correct. So why discuss something with someone when you know their opinion won't budge yet?
Marketing In the Soul Age describes people identifying themselves, at least as consumers, as a unique combination of memberships in different groups. Taking me for example, I generally associate with LDS, Tai Chi, Full Contact Weapon Fighting, Yang Gang, Antioch University, AntiMLM, etc. Think about your life, what groups do you identify with?
Now, let's take two opposing groups. One group is a historical society who wants to preserve the look and feel of downtown, and the other group is a business association that wants to renovate the downtown area. On one hand we have Nancy who is in the historical society, and on the other hand we have Jill who is in the business association. Let's say these two open a correspondence. They argue, make generalizations about each other, and otherwise have extraordinary disagreements.
But as this correspondence continues something interesting happens. When Nancy goes back to hang out with the other people in the historical society, Nancy is more knowledgeable about the business association's views. Nancy becomes the historical society's resident expert on business association thinking, basically becoming their resident business association group member. Likewise when Jill goes back to hang out with the business association, Jill rapidly becomes the business association's resident historical society member.
In order to adequately represent business association views to the historical society Nancy will find herself sometimes defending business association views. Likewise Jill will sometimes find herself defending historical society views at the business association. But this expands both Jill's and Nancy's options, because now that they understand each others perspectives, they can use each others perspectives as needed. Jill might be able to see that some of the old buildings might make good tourist attractions to attract more business, and Nancy might be able to see that if some parts of downtown are renovated it could increase the tax revenue needed to maintain more important landmarks.
Keep this "group association" concept in mind when chatting with someone involved in MLM. If you have correspondence with someone who is in MLM, they become that MLMer who has anti-MLM friends. This can help them leave MLM, because as they inevitably run into the problems in MLM, they will have YOUR anti-MLM perspective for handling those problems, and they will have YOU as a friend so they are not so isolated as they leave MLM.
Voters need to do the exact opposite of politicians in arguments in order to preserve democracy. In an argument a politician seeks to show the differences between that politician and his opponents, to show voters why the voters should vote for that politician instead of that politician's opponents. In arguments with other voters we should seek to find common ground with other voters, so that together we can hold politicians accountable for acting or not acting on that common ground.
This is going beyond reaching out, it is fighting to find agreement. What if I were to tell you that as a progressive, I was able to come to a consensus with an Alt-right acquaintance on gun control? I have open contempt for the 2nd amendment, as I consider it to be a relic of slavery, where as my acquaintance sees the 2nd amendment as a sacred protection for all of our other rights. How could we ever see eye to eye on this issue? Here's how:
We both agree that soccer moms with cheap handguns in their purse with no training were a public safety problem.
We both agree that no matter the political views of a serious gun enthusiast, the kind of gun enthusiast that owns a wide range of firearms and shoots at the range, this enthusiast is of no public safety risk whatsoever. This gun enthusiast is not going to break the law, threaten the police, threaten other people, use the gun unsafely, fail to teach children adequate gun safety, allow children to play with the guns like toys, fail to lock up the weapons, etc.
Therefore, we both more or less agree that gun enthusiasts shouldn't really have restrictions on any weapon they want to own, but also that there should be less casual gun owners who do not take their weapons seriously.
Though we both agree the Texas gun "license to carry" system isn't perfect, we both agree it's far better than what most states have now.
In our era of constant calls for gun control, how come politicians are not fast at work making a federal system based on Texas's "License to Carry"? Because we voters are not holding them accountable, we have allowed ourselves as voters to be divided. But when I am arguing, this is the effect 3D Thinking has on the debate: any common ground I can find with the other side is precious.
Look at it like this: are there any stupid people who agree with your views? Obviously. Therefore, is it possible that there are smart people who disagree with your views? Yes it is. Would it be wise for someone with your views to understand why smart people disagree with your views? Of course. Is that smart person better off if they understand why you disagree with their views? We are all better off, if we can see were we disagree, and then understand where we DO agree.
I go out of my way to talk to people I don't agree with. And this is not just over minor things, this is over big controversial things such as a lot of the subject matter on this blog. Why? When you find someone you disagree with, you have found the edge of your echo-chamber: if you want to help change someone's opinion, this is your only chance. But most of the time you can't change someone's opinion by arguing with them, right? 100% correct. So why discuss something with someone when you know their opinion won't budge yet?
Marketing In the Soul Age describes people identifying themselves, at least as consumers, as a unique combination of memberships in different groups. Taking me for example, I generally associate with LDS, Tai Chi, Full Contact Weapon Fighting, Yang Gang, Antioch University, AntiMLM, etc. Think about your life, what groups do you identify with?
Now, let's take two opposites, on one hand we have a Mr. Antifa who is an anarchist, and on the other hand we have a Ms. Alt-right who is a fascist. Let's say these two open a correspondence. They argue, make a lot of broad accusations towards each other, offend one another deeply, and so on.
But as this correspondence continues something interesting happens. When Mr. Antifa goes back to hang out with the other anarchists, Mr. Antifa is more knowledgeable about fascist views. Mr. Antifa becomes the anarchist group's resident expert on fascist thinking, their resident fascist. Likewise when the Ms. Alt-right goes back to hang out with her fellow fascists, Ms. Alt-right rapidly becomes the fascists group's resident anarchist.
Even though Ms. Alt-right and Mr. Antifa may not agree with each other's thinking most of the time, because they understand each other's perspectives, they can use those opposing perspectives when it suits them. Mr. Antifa has a better understanding of how strong authority can have its advantages in certain situations, and Ms. Alt-right can see the flaws in strong authority figures and the need to avoid complying with authority blindly.
I recently posted a Tai Chi video on the Tres Espadas YouTube channel, and there is praise there in the comments by someone named "White Lives Matter." Does that sound like someone I would normally agree with? HELL NO! But look, here we have someone at least sympathetic towards white separatist views praising:
a channel and club with a spanglish name "Tres Espadas," (racist whites I have spoken to are offended by white people using Spanish names for things,)
a video which talks about a Chinese Martial art, "Tai Chi," (amidst the COVID-19 pandemic anti-Asian sentiment is high,) which is also
a video featuring kids who are obviously at most only half-white. (When white separatists say they want to protect a future for white children, they are saying they eschew mixed race relationships.)
Having someone calling themselves "White Lives Matter" like that video is huge. That means when they are hanging out with their unsympathetic-to-BLM group, they are likely now the racially progressive one in that (probably racist) group!
I implore people in the anti-MLM community to keep this group association concept in mind. If you have correspondence with someone who is in MLM, they become that MLMer who has anti-MLM friends. This is one of the best things you can do to help them leave MLM, because as they inevitably run into the problems in MLM, they will have YOUR anti-MLM perspective for handling those problems, and they will have YOU as a friend so they are not so isolated as they leave MLM.
I am a casual user of Linux, and this is about Linux from the perspective of a consumer advocate. If you want to just cut to the chase, I strongly recommend Mint Linux for most casual consumers. (Don't get me wrong, this could change, but Mint has been king now for close to a decade.)
The first thing you need to know about Linux is that it is an operating system. An operating system is the software that comes already installed on a device when you get it, which allows that device to work. Most phones use "Android" as an operating system, most computers use "Windows" as an operating system, and Apple has other operating systems for iPhones and Macs.
Most of the time when people use Linux it is on a computer that would normally run Windows. In fact most computers that run Linux originally came with Windows on them. The main reasons to use Linux instead of Windows are:
Linux is free. If you want to update to a new version of Windows, it's going to cost you, and it's not going to be very convenient. Linux has numerous alternatives to this.
Linux is more secure. No, it's not because Linux is less common, it's because Linux is designed to be more secure. Linux users generally don't have to worry about spyware and viruses!
Linux is open source. You can always find out what Linux is doing, because the code is available to everyone. Good luck figuring out what Windows is doing behind closed doors, probably stealing your data and selling it to the highest bidder.
Linux is more stable. When Linux has a problem, it's usually pretty easy to fix. Sometimes with Windows you just can't ever fix the problem because Microsoft isn't hiding their cards close to their chest, they are hiding their cards behind their back.
Linux uses system resources more efficiently - or in other words it makes your computer more powerful. I do not understand why Windows seems to take up 2 gigs of RAM and 32 gigs of hard drive space, but last I checked neither of those things were free, and both things were important for my daily use of my computer.
The next thing you need to understand about Linux is what types of Linux there are. First, Linux is part of a family of operating systems based on an ancient operating system called Unix. Android, Apple's various operating systems, Chrome OS (on Chromebooks,) and Free BSD are all in this same family. But of those, the easiest to install and use on your own computer is by far Linux, which is why Linux is used by do-it-yourself people instead of those other operating systems about 99% of the time.
Now when you get down to Linux specifically, the different kinds of Linux are called "distros" (short for "distributions." If you want to follow the latest news on distros and the horse races on what distros are currently the most used, check out the website "DistroWatch.") What makes this confusing is that most distros are based on other distros. Here are some common distros for other distros to be based on:
Debian: this is the hard core nerd maximum-power version of Linux, very elite.
Red Hat (aka Fedora): this is the corporate business edition type of Linux.
Arch Linux: this is like a lego set where you are given pieces with which to put together a configuration of linux for your computer and situation.
Gentoo: this is super flexible Linux for people who want to micromanage every aspect of their operating system. This is what Chrome OS was based on back when Chrome OS was still Linux.
Ubuntu: this is user-friendly linux meant to be used by the average computer user - I stress "meant" here, because it doesn't always deliver on this promise. Ubuntu was originally based on Debian, but Ubuntu is its own thing now.
And if you are new to Linux, the only distros you should be taking seriously are distros based on Ubuntu, because it is unlikely you will even get other distros up and running. But not all Ubuntu based distros are equal: Ubuntu was the only really user friendly Linux from 2006 to 2011, and then they made a horrible mistake ironically called "Unity" which completely fractured the Ubuntu community. Fortunately one fragment of this community dominated and thrived, and continued Ubuntu's tradition of being user-friendly, and that distro is called "Mint Linux."
Mint Linux is the way to go for most casual users of Linux and Linux newbies, because it is completely focused on being user friendly. It is easy to install, it is easy to use when it gets installed, it looks good, and it is still respectful of your system resources even though it looks good. Mint is the easy linux: it is easy, and it is linux!
It's 2020 and things are changing fast. I wish Chrome OS was a decent operating system I could install the software I need on, I wish Android was a serious challenger to Windows, I wish Google was done working on a new Operating System called Fuchsia that might be better than all of the above some day in the future, and I wish Ubuntu had never done Unity. But we install the operating system that is available to us, not the operating system we wish was available to us, and that operating system is Mint.
And honestly Mint is a fine operating system indeed, I have basically no complaints about it what so ever. The only issues that people might be concerned about are 1) not all Steam games work in Linux, and 2) some business software is Windows-only. However for most laptop and desktop users Mint is a step above all other operating systems:
In 2018 I wrote about encapsulation in martial arts. But the other side to that is martial arts overspecializing in one aspect of training until that training loses relevance. When it comes to self defense in general, understand that studying only unarmed martial arts for self defense is already overspecialization. For comprehensive self defense you also need training in situational awareness, what to do in an active shooter situation, and how to use weapons you have available to defend yourself with.
Another common form of overspecialization in self defense is shooting at the gun range. First, the vast majority of people with a need to defend themselves don't have a gun easily available to them most of the time, if they even own a gun in the first place. Second though practicing at a range is certainly an important aspect of gun training, there are at least 4 other aspects that need to be trained in if firearms are your primary martial art for self defense: deployment, retention, strategy and sparring.
The most encapsulated martial art is probably Boxing - punches only. It is highly effective in self defense because of the efficacy of punching (high power, low risk,) the importance of knowing how to defend against a punch and because of Boxing's footwork. Studying boxing will improve almost anyone's punching, punching defense and footwork.
BUT the downside to this is those are the only martial arts skills you will learn in boxing. Let's say someone said "I want to do MMA, but I want a good foundation first, so I am going to train boxing until I win 10 boxing matches." The problem there is overspecialization: there's a lot of other stuff you need to know for MMA besides boxing!
But MMA itself is limited when it comes to its application to street fighting for self defense. The UFC was originally designed to show the value of grappling to martial arts consumers, and within the first few UFCs fans became convinced that grappling was far more important than striking (until Maurice Smith came along and fixed that for them.) In a one on one confrontation with no weapons, grappling can be more important than striking. The problem is that martial arts consumers don't study martial arts so they can beat up one other person who does not have weapons: martial arts consumer's first and highest concern is being attacked by more than one person or someone with a knife.
Boxing vs. MMA in this context plays out very differently. The issue is that much of the time an MMA fighter is going to want to take the opponent to the ground. The MMA fighter trains to do this until it is a reflex. If you are on the ground with a knife, and you haven't trained to control that knife, you are more vulnerable to getting stabbed than you were on your feet. Strategically being on the ground against multiple attackers is even worse.
Against multiple attackers a Boxer is going to be staying on their feet and dropping people with punches. This is one of the best strategies I know of for both handling someone with a knife and for multiple attackers. Boxing is called "the sweet science of self defense" for very good reasons.
Still MMA is a precious resource for all martial artists, helping them see were their vulnerabilities are as a fighter and making sure they have a well rounded skill set when it comes to unarmed fighting. Where things get complicated is with Jujitsu. Most forms of Jujitsu (Judo, BJJ, Aikido, etc.) have a low emphasis on striking, and most who claim to study some form of Jujitsu don't spar with strikes at all, meaning their maximum skill level for delivering and defending against strikes is minimal. Their plan A most of the time is to go to the ground with the opponent to control them. (Contrast this to say collegiate wrestling, where avoiding the pin and escaping is just as important to winning as pinning - nothing trains you to get on your feet like collegiate wrestling.) Jujitsu gives you all the going-to-the-ground vulnerabilities of MMA, without helping you cover your blind spots the way MMA does.
I found a lot of useful things from Aikido to spar with even though I only trained in it casually for a few years. The problem is that once someone is overly committed to training in Aikido, they invest massive amounts of time into wrist lock technique: for many Aikidoka, wrist locks ARE Aikido. What they don't grasp is 90% of those wrist locks are found in 90% of other traditional martial arts, but only a few of the least-sparring traditional martial arts have deluded themselves into thinking wrist locks are a reliable technique that should be used often.
This is post is a sequel to my earlier 3D Police post, where I pointed out that what the public wants and the public does NOT get is crime prevention. My last post was on bad lefty branding, and "defund the police" is BLM style bad-branding, utterly failing to describe the issue Defund the Police wishes to pursue (more funding for other unspecific services, not the dissolving of police as an institution.) Before we get what I am about to propose, we first need to understand the three categories of organizations that exist and the four types of public safety that exist. The three categories of organizations are:
Government: state funded colleges, police departments, city counsels etc. all paid for by your tax dollars and ultimately controlled by people who depend on your vote to keep their jobs. The bottom line of the government in a democracy is to enforce the collective will of the people.
Businesses: they use money and resources to produce more money and resources. This is where most jobs come from, and it is also where most products and services come from.
Non-Profit-Organizations (NPO): these are essentially charities, typically dependent on grants, donations and/or government funding. These organizations address society's problems: shelters, most chemical dependency treatment, food banks, humane societies, institutions devoted to research, clubs etc.
Keep in mind that certain groups of organizations do not all fall in the same category. A local community college like Seattle Central is a government institution. Antioch University Seattle is an NPO. Argosy (Art Institute of Seattle) was a business. Argosy going out of business is a good example of how not all categories are good for all things, the for-profit colleges are notoriously sketchy and often short lived, a thrift store is what you get when you try to do retail as an NPO, and Government does not produce the best cheese.
Now understand that there are currently 4 main Public Safety roles:
Police: these are the hired guns of the District Attorney, the government's monopoly on violence. Notice they are in the category of government.
Private Security: the professionalism in the security industry has increased drastically over the last few decades, but its obvious to all that business employee "security officers" don't hold the same weight as Police.
Firefighters: that first red ambulance that shows up with the hard core professionals saving your life - those are firefighters. Yes, they have great toys for putting out fires, but their first concern is your immediate physical safety. Notice they do not have the same BLM publicity problem Police have, and notice that Firefighters are also for the most part Government employees.
Paramedics and EMTs of the white ambulance that show up after the red ambulance are basically hospital delivery drivers. Once firefighters stabilize someone in medical duress, the white ambulance staff gets paid a dollar or two above minimum wage to deliver that someone to the hospital. These not-really-firefighters, like the not-really-police above, are business employees.
So where is the NPO public safety staff? Crime prevention is ultimately an education issue. Education is best handled by government and NPOs. Government is already using all the resources they can for crime prevention by providing K-12 education and Police. They should and will do better in the future, but the NPO piece is clearly missing.
The best example I can think of for NPO public safety are the "Downtown Ambassadors" of the "Downtown Seattle Association" NPO. They looks sort of like cops on bikes, except for they don't have guns and are dressed in brighter colors. When they see a problem, rather than panic and make useless complaint after complaint to 911, they actually directly approach the problem. If they see a homeless woman trying to sell herself on the street they do not make an arrest, they instead try to get that homeless woman the help she needs.
And Downtown Ambassadors are now found in Downtowns of major cities all over the USA and Canada. But this is a fairly new and experimental project. What I am proposing here is giving this movement a clear mandate, and expanding it to a much wider range of neighborhoods. What I am proposing is a Neighborhood Safety Team (NST.)
The mandate of a NST is to prevent crime. How to do this best varies from neighborhood to neighborhood, depending on demographics and lifestyles in each neighborhood. In a rural town of 5,000 people, a Neighborhood Safety Teams biggest concern might be alcohol, preventing drunk driving and breaking up teenage parties before the local Sheriff has to be involved. In an intercity neighborhood a Neighborhood Safety Team may be negotiating peace between rival gangs and holding group treatment meetings for people having issues with chemical dependency.
Neighborhood Safety Teams need tremendous autonomy from the Law Enforcement, while simultaneously having tremendous support from Law Enforcement. On one hand Law Enforcement needs to understand that the NST are not extensions of the law; the NST is not there to help the police bring evil doers to justice. On the other hand the police need to understand that if a person on an NST calls for help, that person is in severe danger and has to be a very high priority.
The leader of every Neighborhood Safety Team should be a certified chemical dependency counselor, for the following reasons:
It is likely most NSTs will be involved in getting people into self help meetings like AA and SMART Recovery. NST must be ready and willing to start self help groups from scratch if they need to. Certified chemical dependency counselors can start and run groups.
Much of the crime that needs to be prevented will be drug and alcohol related, and a certified chemical dependency counselor will have some training in understanding this dynamic and what changes need to happen in the neighborhood in order to reduce crime.
There is a special type of legal protection for certified chemical dependency counselors (42 CFR Part 2) that allows those counselors to exercise confidentiality not unlike a lawyer or doctor. Having a certified chemical dependency counselor at the head of a NST helps everyone be clear that the NST is on the side of the neighborhood residents, not the side of the District Attorney.
A NST would be funded through an NPO, depending on what NPOs service that neighborhood. In turn those NPOs can seek grants, donations and/or government funding with witch to support the NST. Because NPOs are always at the mercy of the communities they serve this keeps the NST accountable to their communities. Beyond this local government can decide which NPO in their area the NST will answer to by choosing which NPO they give funding to support the NST.
But an NST doesn't necessarily need government funding. An upper class neighborhood in Florida may have an NST funded through a home owner's association, and that NST might be focused on getting the spoiled grandchildren off of cocaine and helping those grandchildren organize more constructive community activities. A poor rural community may fund an NST through a local church in order to hold meetings for people struggling with methamphetamine and crashing keggers making sure kids are educated on consent and the dangers of alcohol consumption.
But all NSTs will be experts in what things people in their Neighborhood need to do in order to avoid getting in trouble with the law. They will be eagerly explaining these issues to the residents of the neighborhood, educating constantly. In most states a certified chemical dependency counselor needs a two year college degree before they can be certified. But the leader of the team isn't the only specialist that could be helpful on the team. Depending on what the needs are in that neighborhood, other team members with education in law enforcement, sociology, anthropology, education, social work or psychology could be helpful. In some neighborhoods former thugs who have turned their life around could be valuable team members, while in other neighborhoods retired law enforcement might be valued.
You can't expect active duty police to educate instead of incarcerate. You can't expect police to sit down with a drug dealer on the corner and explain to them the dealer could make more money working part time washing dishes with far less risk. You can't expect police to be on call to handle neighborhood disputes in order to prevent violence. You can't have them constantly talking to youth making sure those youth are pursuing edifying activities and learning to stay within the law. You can't expect the police to help reorganize your community to be safer. That's why you need an NST.
I basically don't have faith that law enforcement can change their ways: in the end they are servants of the district attorney, eager to put you in prison for any crime they can trick you into implicating yourself in with their lies and intimidation, weather you are innocent or not. Meanwhile they may beat you bloody or fill you with hot lead for target practice. They are very good at what they do, and they are probably not going to change.
Instead we need a new type of public safety that is focused on crime prevention and education. The NST led by a certified chemical dependency counselor and backed by an appropriate NPO will be able to reach out to the people in your Neighborhood to help them obey they law in the first place so that Law Enforcement does not have to be involved.
