#false binary

Heroes vs Villains

Good Guys vs Bad Guys

Oppressors vs Victims

Right vs Wrong

Ally vs Enemy

Loyal vs Treasonous

Moral vs Immoral

The truth is much more difficult to grapple with than any of these false binaries.

Describing Gender Beyond the Binary, a game created by frogwatching

Content: Rated G. Friendly for all ages.

Medium: A zine. 16 pages, with covers. Layout for reading on screen.

About: A workbook for describing your gender by plotting it on a grid, where the reference points are other concepts than a male-female axis.

Vibe: Innovative, approachable, makes difficult concepts look easy.

wanted a poll, have a poll

*this includes any type of coffee and tea; hot, iced, sweetened or not, with added stuff or not, flavored foods; herbal teas which aren't technically tea and coffee alternatives that are nothing like coffee. all I care about is if you think of it as "tea" or "coffee".

Third Option, by Karma Chameleon

Content: Rated G.

Medium: Physical game. One page of instructions.

Length: A few minutes.

About: "Third Option is a simple game about reaching outside the options you're given. It takes the form of a conversation (written, spoken, or otherwise), and requires no extra materials. Recommended as an icebreaker, idle distraction, or grounding exercise."

Vibe: Thoughtful, playful.

Curator's note: The game doesn't mention genders outside of the male/female binary, but personally I think it's ideal for getting that idea across, and for sharpening the skill of thinking outside of other boxes.

For no good reason, I was going through the list of logical fallacies and, given that the US Presidential Election is coming up, the False Dilemma stood out:A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a…

This is just a rough (very) sketch of an idea I just had. First, obviously, the current and decades-old idea that the left and right two-color model of politics (American for this example) is too simplistic to be useful or relevant, let alone accurate. The more we see it that way, the worse everything gets. And, unfortunately, even seeing our political landscape as some simple gradient between two extremes misses too much to be useful beyond 6th grade.

So, my rough model, though... well, rough, is still better than the polar / red and blue model(s). Valuable for two main reasons.

The lie of the polar model has warped us. Largely, we fail to see the nuances, so we certainly can't articulate them. Yes, we see moderates and their would-be idealist allies infighting, wasting mountains of energy and time. Yes, it's great for your opponent but you do it, too. Ordinary republicans are insulted as "RINOs" in a snide attempt to radicalize them. Dems castigate progressives as -I don't even know what anymore-an unreasonable waste of time.

We have too many issues and citizens being dismissed by the system. Conversely, our diverging AND converging values are continually overlooked, in favor of a bunch of milquetoast, moderate, centrist bullshit. Our compromises are in the wrong place, and our steadfast values have been warped and manipulated into just more bullshit. We've been cramming a nuanced reality into a smelly shoebox that we blindly call "American politics."

One: What's obvious along with all this is that the two party system is bullshit. It's not representative, responsive, or accountable. We need ranked voting, unquestionably. The moderate and milquetoast will cry, "But that just invites radicals into government! Including you-know-who... (communists and nazis.)" Well, we've already got more nazis than communists in fucking congress, so trying something better is long overdue.

So if we can see that disparity...