pellakensblog: July 2018

Sunday, 29 July 2018

twitter rant

@kimgoodwin I'm not at all confidant that my tweet will be read, or much less, honestly replied to; but, I just read your article here http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180727-mansplaining-explained-in-one-chart and have some concerns about what it leaves out. For starters, I have autism and do not always pick up social queues

Secondly, I love explaining things to people. All things. At all times. People say "oh, that mall there must be convenient" and I say "yes! Did you know they re-did the entire inside so you can no longer walk from end to end!" It's part of who I am. I'm excited to explain things.

Yes, I've had a few people accuse me of being arrogant or condescending. A lot of people have said I'm pedantic. I accept these things about myself, but also accept some people and I simply have incompatible personalities.

My concern is thus that by talking to a woman the same way I talk to a man, I became a "sexist mansplainer". I'm not saying women should 'take it like a man would', they can call me a condescending arrogant pedant; but a sexist??

It has quite literally made me withdraw from social sociations at an increasingly often rate. Especially after I read an article like yours. It says to me "if you happen to be talking to a woman, you are a sexist"

It is quite possible my autism means I'm missing something; and, a lot of what I read deals with business conversations, while I am on disability and not currently employed. Regardless, all this does it make me feel bad about myself as a person for loving explaining things.

Right now I'm listening to a podcast that can be best described as "a man explains a part of history for 45 mins". I just finished watching a lets play video that's very heavy on explanations. I love explanations. I live explanations. Explaining is one of the few things I do well

In sum. My reaction has simply been to withdraw from social interaction. I'm not certain that this is the intent of the people who are pushing the term intended, and I'm not sure how else to react to this. Especially online if I don't know if I'm talking to a man or a woman.

Instead of having personality flaws like being a condescending arrogant pedant, I am now a sexist. I am a "bad person". I feel bad for being a bad person. I cut back on the little social interaction I do get, and simply feel alone all the time.

And. That's it I guess. There isn't much you can do I don't think. I'm sorry for directing all of this at you as well, as, this all has been building inside me for quite some time now. I really don't have much more I feel I can say.

Tuesday, 24 July 2018

kings and the such

Sunday, 22 July 2018

syrian civil war, predicting war movements

I thought an attack in the south would be the next logical movement for the government. They then made just such an attack.

I want to see if my martial mind is worth anything. This is my projection for the next major attack. The direction of the first thrust, and next major attack. Not much beyond the arrows for that first thrust. Lets see.

Saturday, 21 July 2018

alternate history rome stuff part 1

In this alternate history, there is a modern Roman Empire. However, to make the game easier to play, it is not a continuous empire, but rather, a re-created one.

The exact history of the world is never outlined, and for a good reason. It's no use to get hung up in specifics of alternate history. Only the general historical movements are outlined, while the rest of history, somehow, happens the way it does in our timeline.

The first empire was that of Augustus, and Constantine, the Roman Empire we think of when we think of Rome. It is often called the Italian Empire, as in, "the time the Empire was ruled by Italians", and not as in "The Empire of Italy"

The second empire is that of Justinian, and Maurice, AKA the Byzantine Empire, or Greek Empire. It is only considered a separate empire from the first in hindsight, and until the rule of Phillip the great, was seen as simply a continuation of the first empire.

The third empire was only ever declared in hindsight, hundreds of years after the fact. It is the empire of Charlemagne, and Lothair, and is often known as the French Empire.

The fourth empire is that of Charles, and Phillip the great. Declared retroactively by Phillip, after inheriting both Austria and Spain from his father Charles, this empire was united when Germany, Italy, and Spain joined with England, which Phillip had claims to through his marriage, and invaded France, annexing the country, in 1560. This empire would truly last for only 20 years, starting to break apart with the dutch revolt, and finally being brought to a legal end at the end of the 30 years war, with France, England, Spain, and Austria being split into legally distinct kingdoms once more. This is often known as the German Empire.

The fifth and current empire was created in 1949, after WW2. After the United States decided not to get involved in the war, the UK and USSR were able to win the war, with the USSR occupying most of Europe. The USSR, now controlling all of europe to the Pyrenees, attempted to put communist governments in power in the various nations, and using nationalism to keep them seperate from one another, to prevent them working together against Moscow. This would prove a failure, as Russia was drastically overstretched, and a series of revolts from 1947-1949, explicitly opposing Russian attempts to appeal to Nationalism and impose Communism, ended with the creation of the modern Roman Empire. As most of the revolts had been funded by, and heavily organized by the United Kingdom, many call the current empire the British Empire; that is "the time the Empire was ruled by the British", and not as in "The Empire of Britain"

pellakensblog