This is the story of my journey, as an LGBT author and singer-songwriter navigating the ever-changing media landscape, and constant cultural upheavals of the early 21st century. My journey towards embracing a positive attitude to life, to our differences, and to the world in general. I have chosen to tell my story in the hope that it will inspire others, and I hope that more people do this too. I am grateful to the stories of other people, and their life journeys, for inspiring me over the years, and getting me through hard times. Life is interesting, and what we learn from it can be unexpected. I wish to contribute to the vast pool of stories already out there, in the hope that one day, my story could be useful to another person out there, who needs a bit of inspiration.
This book combines content from my 2021 works 'A Trans Popstar's Story: Being Trans and Chasing Dreams During Quarterlife', 'Eight Lessons from my Quarter Life Period' and 'The Background and Context of Moral Libertarianism' to paint a complete picture of my journey so far.
Saturday, August 14, 2021
Friday, July 9, 2021
In recent years, it has become unfashionable to identify as a liberal in many parts of the West, especially in intellectual circles. As I have previously said, the Right started this trend by making 'liberal' a dirty word in the 1980s, but in recent years, the Left appears to be outdoing them, attacking anyone who is disappointing to them as a 'lib'. In a sense, the Left and the Right have become allies on this issue, burying liberalism together, even as they can't agree on almost anything else. I believe the problem with this decline in liberalism is that, it will necessarily lead to a decline in morality, or even a total collapse in morality, in the Western world. This will likely be accompanied by an increasing dysfunction of our political systems, which I fear we are already beginning to see. Let me explain.
Thursday, February 18, 2021
This version of TECS continues to feature a UI based on the idea of multiple spaces dedicated to specific types of activity. The spaces each have panels with information and/or links relevant to that type of activity, and they each have a unique wallpaper that is changeable. The spaces can be reached via buttons on the taskbar (color-coded and represented by letters in this version: H for Home, S for Studio, E for Entertainment, N for Newsroom, O for Office, T for Travel). Custom spaces can also be added (there is a taskbar button for that), or could be added during the installation of new apps (e.g. a cooking app could add a 'kitchen' space).
Monday, November 30, 2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020
In recent years, there has been a growing crisis within liberalism. It is losing its identity, its ideals, and perhaps its very reason for existence. We can see this from several different angles.
Compared to all other available options (e.g. postmodernism, criticalism, identity politics, neoconservatism etc.), liberalism is still the most morally sound path for Western democratic societies going forward, and most likely to get us to the best resolution for the controversial social issues we face. This film will make the case for this argument.
As a citizen of a Western democratic country, given the crossroads we find ourselves facing at the moment (e.g. conflicting identity politics claims, the 'history wars', the 'woke' vs 'reactionary' culture wars, the questioning of the long-standing social contract), I feel that it's my responsibility to speak up, before it's too late.
As the 2nd decade of the 21st century progressed, something unsettling was developing. Culture and politics in the Western world was becoming increasingly polarized. I mean, people have always been passionate about the causes they support, and that’s not a bad thing. Debates inevitably become heated sometimes. But what’s new is that there was a qualitative change in the way social debates proceeded. People became strongly polarized on two extremes on many hot button issues, and they increasingly believed they could and should do everything to win. No compromises, no principles, no civility. People stopped debating in good faith, and productive dialogue started to suffer.
Monday, July 13, 2020
Thursday, April 9, 2020
Today, I'm going to talk about some comments Emma Watson recently made, in an interview she had with feminist academic Valerie Hudson, published in Teen Vogue.
Anyway, there are some very concerning quotes from Ms Watson, who is often considered a role model for young women. Let's start with this one: "I love the word microaggression. I’ve been doing therapy for years and think it’s the best thing ever, and we talk about telling the microscopic truth." I personally don't know what the 'microscopic truth' is, but I certainly don't love the word microaggression. I think it's one of the most problematic words popularized in the last ten years. According to Wikipedia, "microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group, particularly culturally marginalized groups". As you can see, the perception of microaggression is necessarily subjective, because it's rooted in perceived linguistic slights, and it counts even when unintentional.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for ending racism, sexism and homophobia. However, I have very genuine concerns that the microaggression concept has a chilling effect on free speech, and it also encourages victim mentality in minorities, which isn't good for them. In life, the expectation of success is half of actually succeeding. Therefore, encouraging minorities to adopt a victim mentality severely curtails their prospect of doing well in life. As I always say, encouraging minorities to adopt a victim mentality is the most effective way of oppressing them. It's really not cool!
Microaggression is also a concept commonly embraced as part of a wider worldview of postmodern radical subjectivity, where reality is constructed by language, and a lack of objectivity is accepted or even celebrated. In the rest of the interview we see some evidence that Ms Watson is buying into this worldview. Here are some more quotes:
"the law is language at the end of the day and it can always be interpreted in different ways, so you need someone that has the right intention to apply it in the right way";
"it's fascinating to me that the origin story of marriage centers around ownership and power"; and finally,
"if we give Earth a male pronoun, maybe we’ll stop pillaging and destroying and killing it".
This worldview is exactly what gave us the post-truth era, where people essentially live in their own version of reality. One of the reasons for our polarized political landscape is that people on either side are reacting to a different reality, because they receive news that is neither objective nor balanced. People also lack shared values, because even once-sacred institutions like marriage and family have come under criticism. Even scientific topics like climate change take on culture war characteristics, which prevent effective consensus and action. I don't think this is progressive at all, if anything, it's regressive. Real progress comes from people finding common ground, talking over their differences, and coming up with solutions. That's what's good for humanity, that's what humanity needs right now. If we declare reality to be subjective and allow people to live their own so-called 'truth', there will be no common ground on which we can reach out to meet people who think differently than us. I think that's the core pathology of our cultural landscape today, and it's something that we should all walk away from.
Monday, February 10, 2020
Welcome to the first episode of Skeptic TaraElla, where we take a stand against unscientific beliefs that not only defy facts and logic, but also make effective political consensus and action difficult. Subscribe if you are interested.
Today's topic is a reply to a recent video from British left-wing media outlet Novara Media, titled Settler Colonialism Is Behind Climate Denial. Basically, the video mainly discussed Australia's bushfires, and the fact that Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison hasn't been taking climate change seriously. That part of the video I can agree with. Scott Morrison's attitude towards climate change is certainly pretty bad, and he should be taken to task for it. We should be unrelenting about our demands for science-based policy.
But then, the video didn't talk much about science. Instead, it took a weird turn, and began discussing 'settler colonialism'. The video attempted to link the British colonization of Australia, which occurred way before anyone knew anything about climate science, to the current climate inaction of the Morrison administration! Without taking away from the suffering of the indigenous Australians associated with colonization, I guess we can still acknowledge that the two issues are clearly separate. Climate change is a science issue with clear scientific evidence, and we should not complicate it with cultural baggage. Morrison's climate policy is clearly a function of political convenience at the present moment; it clearly does not have any link to the actions of British colonists in the past! I don't care what fancy postmodern or critical theory you use to justify your point of view; facts are facts, and it is clearly not logical to link the voluntary actions of a current government to completely unrelated historical wrongs.
So why am I so worked up about this? Because it complicates the scientific issue of climate change, making effective action more difficult. What these people are doing is that they are taking an issue with clear scientific evidence and science-based solutions, and muddying it up with cultural analyses based on postmodernism and critical theory. They are thus making climate action less acceptable for many people. They are effectively willing to risk the future of humanity, to promote their radical cultural agenda. This is clearly irresponsible.
Of course, this is also a part of a bigger picture. Critical theory and postmodernism are clearly anti-science in their orientation. These ideologies almost always de-center the objective science, making everything about social construction and cultural critique. Wherever the tentacles of these ideologies reach into, objective scientific discussion becomes impossible, and everything is turned into a culture war. We saw it with LGBT issues, we saw it with so-called gender studies, and now we're seeing with climate science.