Help! I just want to know how everybody defines hate speech. It seems to have no definite definition, and it is used to shut down a lot of arguments.

For some five years, I have maintained that both feminists and progressives are people who feel insecure and inadequate, and to compensate for that, they seek attention and validation. They are angry, jealous, awful people, and they seek moral superiority without understanding that the place they are advocating is not morally superior. it is a place that the criminals hold when they can't win in a fair way.

When I asked AI about the psychological profile of progressives, this is what it said.

Someone thinks the UK is still the British Empire. Bit out of touch.

Someone posted this on Substack. Any confirmations?

Here's what I think...

It's virtually impossible to have a civil conversation on the web these days. So many are convinced that they, and only they are right. I'm not out to win an argument, and calling me names might make someone feel better about themselves and their situation, but it never changed anything.

Have you ever thought about the culture you grew up in? Have you understood that the things you believe, and the actions you undertake, are all based on what you absorbed without even thinking about it?

The real issue in our world, no matter which way you look at it, always comes down to the people without money and power waging psychological warfare against the people with power and money. This screenshot is from an article I wrote on Substack.

From my article on Subtack.

What will happen to America during the next 10 years according to Google AI

So which countries will survive the next ten years?

Well Humza, how do you reconcile child marriage, wife beating, clitorectomies and stoning women...with traditional English values Do you see a compromise ? Child marriage is OK if the girl is over ten, perhaps ? A meeting point, half way ? Stoning women only with pieces of wood ? Removing only half the clitoris ? Let's have some suggestions, please, Humza

We need to take a long, hard look at this idea that all people must be included, and they must be included even more if they were excluded previously. There is no moral precept that people must be included. Mother Nation evolved in the opposite way - it made us discriminate on the basis of what might be dangerous to our health, what might work against our well-being, etc.

It's really difficult to advance any point that goes against the vast majority of people. What are we going to do?

Sometimes, when we look at things through a different lens, we can see more clearly.

It's unbelievable how many people don't have the drive to look at the facts...

Most people in political leadership are men, but it is not gender specific. There are women in leadership as well. As far as I can see, neither are much good at it these days. There are a number of reasons. Candidates running for election put themselves forward. The things that they say about themselves, and all the policies and promises that they make, are never examined in fine detail. Nothing is checked, or very little is checked. Ideologies are promoted without examining where those ideologies will lead in the medium to longer term. An example is the ‘stop climate change’ movement. That might have been relevant in the 50s and 60s, but today, with climate change upon us, it is no longer possible to stop it, and if there is a possibility of eliminating some of the effects, those outcomes will only be visible in 500 or 600 years. To reverse it completely would take a 1000 years. Essentially, the likelihood of getting 195 countries to drop all textile production made from oil (plastics), all buildings made of concrete, all forms of transport that emit carbon dioxide is impossible. There is no country on earth that will do this, nevermind all 195 countrties within the next few years. There are no standards or qualifications required to run for leadership. Many leaders are elected based on their promises, their oratory, or agency advertising. This means that liars, crooks, rapists, criminals, idiots, and nincompoops can be either your local politician or your president. While someone applying for a CEO position for a major corporation has to go through countless psychometry and IQ tests, people running for office don’t have to meet any requirements. Far too much power is put into the hands of too few people. For example, 150 years ago, there were about 39 million people in America. One person plus a house and a senate to make decisions for 39 million people is very different to one person and a house and a senate making decisions for 350 million people. To draw an analogy, two parents bringing up two kids would have to make very different decisions if they had ten kids instead of two kids. When that much power is put into the hands of only a few people, it bends their brains. Studies have shown that when people have too much power, their perspectives and values change in a negative way. Consequently, anyone whom we elect to a powerful leadership position will eventually succumb to brain injury, idiocy, and psychopathy. For many more reasons, we have poor leadership in the west today. While democracy in previous times may have produced better leaders, that is highly unlikely to happen today. To go back to the analogy on the difference of raising two children and raising ten children, If one has two, one only has to cater to two sets of interests (childrn, people, can cultures different). If one has ten children, things become very different. They are all on different paths because they are different people. When there are multicultural societies, and where there are self-interested societies (individualism), plus leaders who have succumbed to the effects of power, nothing good will come of it.

An article I wrote about Anne Carson's poetry and writing skills this morning. tessaschlesinger.medium.com/…

One thing I have always hated about X (even from early Twitter days). It's when I comment, either to a comment already made, or to the OP, and I get a response, and i don't know whether they're talking to me or to the OP. If they're talking to the OP, then leave me out of it. Remove me from the conversation. If they're talking to me, then only include my name.