Peter Curtis's Shortform
Sep 15, 20251
Peter Curtis
-23
1
12
Notes;
A jack of all disputes is a master of none.
Thinking more about it; it almost makes gender and race completely redundant terminology (outside of discussing their concepts in retrospect, or theoretical exercise).
Subjective aspects - including aspects otherwise assosicated with Ethnicity such as cultural adoption or association - are ideated, which might suggest it deserving exclusion from Ethnicity as a category.
Phenotypical aspects i.e. skin pigment, hair / eye colour, feet size are visual traits - and increasingly expressions - sometimes resulting from conditions or medicalisation - not representitive of sex or ethnic genotype / genealogy .
Whereas Sex and Ethnicity denote measurable categories of empirical information.
Just my thoughts for the day.
Effectively the left category becomes ‘identity’ and subject to ideation, whereas the right becomes ‘empirical’ and subject to observable metrics.
Gender (Subjective, Phenotype) is to Sex (Objective, Biological Markers, Genotype)
similarily in what
Race (Subjective, Phenotype) is to Ethnicity (Objective, as Genealogy, Genotype)
- It doesn't need to remain Emma Watson, but it was inspired by the recent public example of her relationship with J K Rowling.
This regarding a behaviour surrounding self-preservation and backtracking of previous statements and alliegences confidently made, not out of malicious intent, but out of ignorance and lack of moral integrity or understanding. Malcom Gladwell, is another example of statements we're likely to see a lot more of in various, and diminishing capacities over the next 30 years. This concerning individuals who will have previously thrown others under the bus simply for maintaining the importance, and immutability of biological sex, during a national period of hysteria and large scale example of the... (read 377 more words →)
The Emma Watson effect
In a world where people born into - or granted - privilege at young ages, relegates them to experiences devoid of the friction required to rear authentic understanding merited by experience, should the world we aim for be one of granting everyone the privilege of lacking the discomfort and strife of conflict and friction, how will we be able to continue rearing living organisms who exercise the cognitive relevance to understand virtues beyond their performative effects, and surrogate understandings?
In such a future, or in the presence of lack of understanding, I believe it will be necessary to create educational means to curate experiences (through consented simulation and curriculum of authentic assessment, maybe) that cultivate first hand through abrasive experience and demonstrated friction, a sincere understanding in the ethical purposes supporting law and regulation.
This morning, I have refined the previous text.
In addition, I am now considering how this also explains social dynamics and the abstract nature of 'being on the same page'.
Where individuals understand their environment to agree on issues, they are able to have extreme 'takes' (humour) where they view metaphor. The band is relaxed.
Where individuals understand their environment to disagree on issues, they are unable to have extreme 'takes' (serious) where they view threat. The band is taut.
This is when a subject becomes 'sensitive', and where conversation requires tact, and deliberation, to find common ground. If this is achieved, the social dynamic becomes relaxed, if it is not, the dynamic remains taut.
This is why conversation is a necessity.
Thoughts this morning of seeing free-speech as a rubber band with elastic properties;
During periods of agreeableness, the rubber band is relaxed, and individuals have more freedom to exercise extreme 'takes', where the general consensus is relaxed - able to dilute it.
During periods of disagreeableness, the rubber band is taut, and individuals have less freedom to exercise extreme 'takes', where the general consensus is strained.
It is the difference in the threat of observable metaphor, vs threat of observable action and intent.
As an indicator;
I think an open - and free speech - society could be measured, not only by the immeasurable nature of abstract expression, but in the measurable nature of observation that you... (read more)
I'll confess that I'm so paranoid about AI scraping information I have to avoid it all together until it is published. Once it's published I'll be curious to see what it says, and I can always make a later revised version. I also have a personal ethos around not using AI being valuable in retrospect as a more authentic representation of myself, my mistakes, my biases, as a person from the 21st century. So I also want to preserve any neanderthalic elements of character, as a testament to myself, whatever they may be.
I think what I'm going to aim to do, is start publishing it as a serialised publication on Substack (not... (read more)
This is a special post for quick takes (aka "shortform"). Only the owner can create top-level comments.
I have an - as of yet - unfinished and disorganised book that I was planning toward resolving misconceptions around tolerance, which proposes a solution to a shared value system that will resolve contentions surrounding areas such as 'free speech' laws, and definitions of 'harm'.
Following recent events concerning Linehan and Kirk, I am desperate to publish some assemblage of it. Having lost my career in concept art for stating my personal view that biological sex is real and (at least currently) immutable after being prompted for my views, I was selfishly hoping this would provide some metric of financial success on release to compensate. I don't want to regret posting it in a sub-par state, or releasing it in the wrong way, but I also don't feel like I have the luxury of waiting any longer. People are getting hurt, and people are confused.
What do I do.
Very poetic, appreciated the read! Love the comment section also. Lot's of great responses.