My moment of Buttigieg fangirling leads to Trump voting insight

Last year there was a period of time I was very into Pete Buttigieg. My Google news algorithm still thinks so, since it's still sending me a lot of Buttigeig content, and I still very often click on that content. I've learned a few things since Buttigieg started campaigning that make me more ambivalent towards him - he's rather conservative in some ways, has a less than awesome relationship with the Black community, and clearly Warren is a candidate more aligned with my values.

Those early days of Buttigieg fan-girling - his youth. His open queerness. His seeming progressiveness. Yet he's white, male and comes from "the people." He's downhome. Maybe he will end the polarization by being a gay mid-Westerner.

Pete Buttigieg is going to save the world!

Mm, probably not. I'm not even going to provide links here - if you type "Pete Buttigeig is not actually that progressive" into Google, you can find out for yourself, if you don't already know. This article isn't about my disappointment with Buttigieg, though. Not by a long shot. Unfortunately, it's about the fact that -

I still really like Buttigieg and this morning I found myself thinking, "I'd like to see him elected, even if he does bad stuff. I don't care, I'm curious! He's so charming. I like him so much, I just want to see more of him! Buttieg 2020!"

And, with that passing thought while scrolling my phone on an early Saturday morning, I have developed previously un-accessed insight into Trump voters.

I thought, in classic left-wing hubris, that I was immune to voting by ethos, not logos. I am different, I thought to myself, than those American idiots. I have better values AND I know how to vote with a clear mind, rather than the heart of fan.

Apparently not 100%. Although I pretty quickly shook my head and said, uh, no, Warren please, I am reminded that you can even dislike a leader's platform and still just feel compelled by them - just want to keep experiencing them, feel curious about what they will do, just want to be around them, want them to pay attention to you and love you and be in charge.

Like dating someone who is clearly not great for you, but being so charmed and attracted that you don't care.

What a deluded state of mind that is, but very human, with many examples in history and literature. It caused me to realize that not all Trump voters are stupid racists - most of them probably aren't - but that there is an aspect of charm and curiousity and being tired of the status quo that makes people excited for personality, especially if that personality comes with the promise of change and novelty.

Obviously you need to have SOME values alignment. I love that Buttigieg is young, gay and rural. I love the idea of how that might depolarize things a bit and I like some of his policies. Not enough to want him, really, to be President, but enough to think, huh, if he was, that'd be interesting.

And if I was facing a vote situation where the only other candidate was someone I'd been taught to, or authentically, had no alignment with, and I felt that Buttigieg was the only candidate who even approached aligning with my values, then I'd likely vote for Buttigieg with enthusiasm and when called an idiot for doing so, just liked Buttigieg all the more (because at least he and his supporters weren't calling me an idiot). And shut my eyes to anything wrong he did, because it was too late and anyways, it didn't effect me that much and it was depressing and it was more fun to just pay attention to the great and powerful object of my affection.*

Again. Like dating the high school hero and overlooking that they were a bully, because at least you felt powerful and oh, they are so cute and fun when they like you.

Voting from ethos is stupid*. I feel very confident saying that. It's a dumb idea. Don't do it, and don't date people who are charming bullies that don't have your best interests at heart.

But don't judge other people for doing it like you're immune to it. At least I won't be.

PS: I'm not really surprised this happened. What I liked about Buttigieg WAS his ethos - that folks would overlook his progressive values and vote for his midWestern charm and then we'd have some real social progressive stuff happen in the US. Presto: depolarization! Turns out that he was not quite so progressive but the ethos is still working a bit on me, in the other direction, pulling me towards the right. Lol.

PPS: I can't vote in the US anyways. Sometimes we forget that in Canada.


*I'm not saying that I think Buttigieg and Trump are alike in values or even capacity. But they both have a strong ethos, attractive to the type who will be attracted to them.

Is our culture capable of changing the date of a major holiday?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/halloween-petition-date-october-trick-or-treat-costumes-a9022551.html

https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/growing-push-to-move-halloween-over-forecasted-rain-1.4662466


Our culture has a growing sense of flexibility. I think something like this would not have even occurred in my youth. Like the thought to even be able to do it wouldn't have occurred.

One could see it as a culture where everything is altered to be more convenient, a sort of snowplow parenting, a putting of convenience over tradition and dealing with adversity.

Or one could say we're letting go of the old limits on our thinking, going what makes sense instead of what we've always done, loosening up our minds to fully live our best lives.

I wonder how it affects social cohesion and inclusion. When decisions get made emergently and creatively, unless you have a rock solid communication system and the population is very socially and idealistically cohesive, or has some sort of meta-decision-making scheme that puts everyone on the same page, you're going to end up having two Halloweens.

I see this working best in a very small town!

Emergent decision making works best in populations that are very cohesive and in clear communication. Outside of that, it can be chaotic. We have all have the experience where a plan is in place and one person asks about a change at the last minute and everything goes a little sideways.

If populations are resilient to complexity, both emotionally and logistically, not minding if things happen twice, don't happen, get delayed or people get left out, then emergent thinking is very workable. Populations like this must have a bigger picture goal beyond the immediate logistical results. They must also have a strong capacity to hold their own experience without blame and be willing to learn and respond constantly from a place of curiousity and fear management. I have seen this happen in subcultures and it can be very energizing and rich.

Our current culture does not have this capacity. We are half way to emergent decision making, in that our minds have opened up to question social forms and traditions that don't always serve us. How liberating this is!

We however still lack of the other side of it, the emotional capacity to live in this more fluid world without fear. In some ways we have more to fear, since instead of one authority figure to be afraid of, we have a billion authority figures, in the form of the people all around us, each with our own desire and beliefs, telling us who we should be and what we you do, even (and perhaps ironically) within this culture of freedom.

I mean, this completely makes sense. We've only known the authority model, so we still use it, in both aggressive and passive aggressive ways. Even while we try desperately to be accepting of diversity, our habits of judgment and control are strong. We're like children raised by unreasonably judgmental, fixed mindset parents who have to figure out how to grow ourselves up on a different model.
What does it look like to have a mind willing to be truly emergent and flexible?

Maybe this year, two Halloweens?

Is that a scary thought to you, or a cool one? Our culture is changing and we don't really know who we are becoming. Some people feel really good about these changes; other people are scared. I'm somewhere in the middle, like most of us, I guess.

But pretty sure the bitching about snowplow parents or inflexible thinkers on the internet ISN'T the solution. I'm going to sit back and just see what happens, trying to be curious but probably also being fairly judgmental towards everyone, mainly by habit. And since it is Halloween (officially, although apparently some towns in the US celebrated it LAST night) I'll be wearing my Star Trek uniform and looking forward to social utopia.

Dealing with billionaires: Choose to not participate in a power-seeker's control drama (personally and politically)

When a person is a billionaire, where actually is their money? I mean because it's obviously not just piles of gold in a vault, but moving around a system. I think it would be more accurate to speak of a "system of wealth" than point to any one billionaire, right? A system of billionaires are working alongside millionaires, high earners right down to minimum wagers. It's just that the billionaire has more leverage in the system.

So the metaphor isn't exactly hoarding so much controlling. It's not about keeping money out of the system by hoarding it, but controlling the system in your own interests by excessive leverage.

Taxing the wealthy is a way of hacking that system.

Unfortunately, the value of being a billionaire is that you have so much power (collectively with others like you) that you might be stronger than the government, and that's why it's harder to tax the wealthy.

Asking a person to give up a level of control they are used to is somewhat of a losing strategy. Forcing them is better, though it does then become a sort of war (in this case, class war) in which the powerful help each other find ways to hide their money or shift the system back.

That's why it's hard to make progress in economic justice.

I've always thought the only tool the working classes have is resistance and non-participation.

Workers: strike. Consumers: boycott.

What powerful people know, deep down, and what makes them insecure (and thus, addicted to power) is that ultimately, they rely on the people they have power over. I know that strikes and boycotts are not always possible, but whenever they can be used, they should be. People who seek "power over" others are always vulnerable, but people who discover the energy of "power with" can be successful in ways that are both psychologically and economically stable.

There are just so many, many ways you can choose to not participate in a power-seeker's control drama. This applies in your personal and political life. Especially if you have privilege.

Comment: Don't protect the aggressor

Conservative MP: rainbow pride flags at schools ‘diminish the dignity’ of the Maple Leaf flag

https://pressprogress.ca/conservative_mp_rainbow_pride_flags_at_schools_diminish_the_dignity_of_the_maple_leaf_flag/?fbclid=IwAR3NdIdGvbxtpNl2jjpYXO5lEKyYs-MgNTE8dCBxsVtpqhPN73ARbqvLvtU

I have no source for this, but I read in an article last year about the logic of the Jewish ghetto during the Holocaust. Official SS party line was that since Jewish people were being aggressed on by the German people in their daily lives, for their own protection, Jewish communities should be kept in a separated ghetto. Of course, these ghettos were anything but healthy, protective spaces. They were prisons.

And of course, any reasonable person could see that the Nazis were looking for ways to limit the freedom of the Jewish people; they didn't care at all about their safety.

When Albrecht suggests that the Pride flag creates division and should be removed, he's using that same bully, gaslighting logic. I'd like to say any sane person could see through it.

What would a reasonable person do if someone is being attacked - and in fact, what does our justice system do (at its best)? We remove the attacker from civic society to (ideally) rehabilitate them or, if that isn't possible, keep them away from the vulnerable.

Imagine a world where every person who was attacked, robbed, raped or harassed was put in jail "for their own protection" while murders, rapists, and thieves ran free? What a horrible society that would be. And in fact, that is what Germany and Europe became during the Holocaust.

I know this is a very different incident level situation. But the logic is the same. Because queer kids get beat up on, Albrecht thinks that we should hide all signs of them so more division isn't created! If we just stop talking about those homosexuals and stop giving them space to be, they'll be safe from those otherwise decent people who just can't seem to stop beating them up.

Know what happens when you do that? You get a culture of bigots. And that's what Albrecht's attitude creates - a place where no one is safe because the criminals are running the show.

I don't believe than any human can't come back from bigotry and ignorance. We're all fairly easily influenced by our communities. We need to keep flying that flag, and everything it stands for, keeping talking, share, being, to make this a just and content society. We need to protect the victims, not the aggressors.

We won't let the bullies pervert the basis of social ethics; they can't gaslight us. We see how irrational they are and we keep pushing forward with our clear thinking and true civic spirit.

Straight Extraverted Men: Please learn to flirt with each other.

When I'm walking into a store, looking down at the ground, not making eye contact with the man coming towards me, and he jovially belts out "Thanks for bringing the good weather? Was that a present from you?" then NO. I don't find you to be "friendly" and "just keeping up civic connections." I don't find myself to be "unfriendly", "jaded" or "maladjusted" because I don't want to participate in this exchange with you and told you so with my body language and eyes.

I find you to be the opposite of civic and friendly - not reading my body language at all, and not taking a moment to think about whether I want your communication. Probably not even knowing that I'm likely going to feel guilty and pissed for the next twenty minutes because I'm socialized to think I should go "Oh TEE HEE OH MR! OH YOU!! TEE HEE WOW YOU'RE SO NICE" and all I can do is squeak out a resentful, powerless small "tee hee" that I hate giving you and also know isn't enough really, for what you seem to want from me.

I wish I could say "No thank you" or better "I wonder if you are reading my body language correctly? It seems clear to me and to a casual observer that I'd like privacy at this moment. You have no idea where I am at emotionally and you're not giving me any choices. I know you're having a moment but please check to see if I am that moment with you. I am not. A friendly head nod would have been fine."

Oh wait, a head nod? That's what you would give a man. You would not demand a flirt from a man.

In the spirit of problem solving, I offer this: hetero extravert men, LEARN TO FLIRT WITH EACH OTHER. You like flirty banter with strangers? Give it to each other since you love to impose it so much. Wait! You feel scared to flirt with a strange man? Or you feel it's "too much"? Or it's "not appropriate?" Or wierd? Then think twice before you do it to a woman.

Men. Learn to flirt with each other. I am tired of bearing the emotional responsibility for your fears of intimacy with 50% of the human race.

I am very, very tired of being imposed on emotionally by strange men and then running a script that I am the rude one.

I. am. not. the. self-absorbed. person. in. this. situation.

The Air Purifier: Thoughts on Anger and Self-Authorship

On Monday when I returned to work from a week long vacation, my air purifier was missing. I use my air purifier to maintain a healthy environment in my windowless office, and, more importantly, as a white noise machine to block out the sounds of people in the hall and other ambient noises. This helps me concentrate and maintain my energy levels – not having it's soothing noise causes me to feel physical tension and then energetic depletion in response to ongoing environmental sounds.

I discovered via email that my air purifier had been given to a resident who just moved in and complained of air quality in the hallway. Next week, promised the email, an ionizer would be installed in the hallway and my air purifier returned. No date was given. Meanwhile, back in this week, I had become aware of an ongoing squeaking noise from the laundry room next to my office. As I tried to focus on my writing, and process my emotions of being back at work after vacation, the noise began to push on my brain with an ever growing force. It became hard to concentrate and hard to think clearly. I longed for my air purifier to block the sound. I tried to ignore it, I told myself that my colleagues, and any reasonable person, would surely say I was being oversensitive, I tried to tell myself it's just 7.5 hours a day, I tried to tell myself that I could handle my energy being depleted, but eventually I just couldn't take it anymore.

I became angry at my co-workers for disrespecting my needs and my property (technically, their property – management giveth and management taketh away!). I became angry in my story that despite all the hype about diversity in the workplace, no one ever seems to take my sensitivity seriously. I think I was even angry at myself for being sensitive!

I decided to act on the anger, but in an effective way. I went downstairs, and took the fan out of someone else's office  who wasn't there (promising another staff I would return it when that staff returned). I took the fan back upstairs, plugged it in, and delighted in the white noise.

Later on when I wrote about this experience to my mother, she asked me if I was able to distinguish where exactly the anger was coming from. She told me that anger is a response to not getting what you need – and what did I need? When she asked me this, I realized that although I had thought I was angry because I felt disrespected and misunderstood by my co-workers regarding my sensitivity – the need being, to be respected and understoood – I realized that actually I was angry because I wasn't getting my more basic need of white noise being met. I was angry at my co-workers because I felt dependent on them to get me what I need, and they weren't doing so. When I realized I could find a way to meet my need myself, their respect and understanding became less important and in fact irrelevant. I was content again in my world with my white noise.

This isn't to say that the need to be respected and understood isn't a need – it is, particularly in situations where that respect is the vehicle to obtaining other needs – but that for me, what was powerful was to recognize that what I often experience as a social need – respect, understanding, being 'seen' – is actually a physical need – having quiet, having space, getting food, getting sleep (four very basic Highly Sensitive Person needs). This happens because I equate getting a physical need met with having a social being or structure give it to me. This is understandable given the structure of human culture, in which we are reliant on others to provide many of our needs. However, authoritarian, coercive structures, which tell us that others know better than us what is right and wrong, and that we must listen, convince us that we are much more reliant on others to have our needs met than we really are. 

I think the shift away from this incorrect understanding is in the approach. Once we separate the essential need from the social structure giving it to us, we can creatively problem solve how to get that need met. We may still rely on the social structure, but our relationship to it changes. I still needed to borrow a fan from a co-worker, but I didn't feel as though one of my co-workers had to go search it out for me, or buy another one right away, or given me my air purifier back. If I had not been able to negotiate the fan, I would have possibly biked to the nearby mall and bought one of my own! I had detached the need from the structure and was thus able to work with the structure, rather than in reliance on it.

Additionally, because of being less reliant on being experienced and treated in a certain way by my co-workers, I was able to let go of angry behaviour within relationship at work, and hold non-naive trust towards my co-workers, recognizing the realities of the social structure (both at work and in the culture at large), and being curious or remaining neutral about their experience of me. This allows me a freedom and generativity in my relating to them which further reduces tension and stimulation, and leaves the door open for increased mutual understanding.

This is called self-authorship and it is extremely liberating and energizing.

Scarcity, Desire and Relating

I was biking past the LRC house one day and I saw a person that I have a crush on leaving the house. I got very excited about seeing this person – I don't see him very often. As I was preparing to stop and speak with him, I saw that Jean was standing on the porch, and she was talking to him. I experience irritation – now Jean was getting in my way of having a one on one conversation with him! Feelings of scarcity were ironically abundant!

My crush had never displayed much interest in me, and I lived for this brief moments of saying hi, always hoping he'd "notice" me, and now this moment was about to be taken away by the presence of Jean. I felt a frustration, ergh, Jean, why now?? Why? Go away! Go away and let me have what I want! I can't have it if you are here! Just looking at Jean, she seemed nothing more than an object in the way of my desire, completely without interest and depth. Hoping to "wait out" her conversation with him, I stopped to say hi to both of them but it was an unsatisfying and awkward experience and I soon realized, while standing there, that I also felt shame and embarassment. I didn't feel as though I was good enough for my crush to like me. I didn't like myself and I felt like a failure, while also as if I was exerting an immense effort.

In this moment, I was able to realize to myself – what I most want is for my crush to be genuinely interested in connecting with me in an ongoing way, as part of a community. If I was connecting to my crush in that way, it would be a pleasure to include Jean, or at least, a neutral event. Jean wouldn't be taking his attention away from me, she's be a member of our extended relating.This situation wouldn't feel painful, but energizing and warm.

I realized then how much my desire and sense of scarcity was shutting me down to my relationship in that moment with Jean – was making her invisible, or, an impediment, a source of irritation. When I am not in that desire/scarcity mental model then I experience delight, enjoyment, connection to Jean. I also realized it was shutting down my relationship to myself - instead of loving and enjoying and respecting my wants and experiences, experiencing my normal delight in self, I was thinking of myself as deprived and worth depriving, an unsatisfying person that I didn't like - an object in my own way! And not to mention how incredibly non-relating I was at the moment towards my crush, the person I was supposed to be truly wanting in this situation. He was becoming completely lost in the dynamics. So at that point, I was in relationship with no one, not even myself - no wonder it was awkward and unsatisfying!

When I told Jean about this we reflected that many of the coercive decisions that are made in the culture come from this scarcity/desire blindness – when a person becomes so caught up in wanting something and feeling they can't get enough or don't have enough, and yet continue to push for it, they become blind to others, which includes blind to their own impacts.

Although it can be painful to let go of something you want that you feel scarcity and desire around – a sort of withdrawal, an emptiness, a disorientation – it helps to remember what you most want, what grounds you, what you love.