"So then I go to my Research Methods class, thinking I got it figured it out. In this class, the teacher (you got it, another white guy) said that your research must be ethical, that we must follow guidelines set out by the university for research on human subjects. The rules are there, my teacher said, to protect the Indians from unscrupulous researchers. Who made these rules I asked, you guessed it, a bunch of white guys. They decided we need protecting and that they were the ones to decide how best to protect us from them."

There are only a few arguments against drug legalization which I take seriously. One of them is this: Some people have long struggled with compulsive drug use, and wish to remain abstinent now. For some of them, the difficulty of obtaining drugs seems important for their continued success. If they could obtain drugs easily, it might create temptation for impulsive decisions. The inconvenience of having to go out and find a dealer, particularly for people who have cut themselves off from dealers and subcultures that make drug-acquisition easy, has a protective effect on some people's continued recovery and their successful exit from a lifestyle they want to avoid falling back into.

On my view, a primary aim of legalization should be to enable easy access to legally regulated drugs for people who are currently using them, to undercut the illicit market, and help people escape the poisonous underground drug supply (erratic doses of street fentanyl, etc.). And this aim requires making legal drugs *easy* to get, not hard. Currently-existing safe supply programs are fundamentally flawed precisely because there are too many barriers to entry, so the vast majority of the most vulnerable people continue using street fentanyl instead. But if we get a form of legalization which solves this problem-- accessibility-- then this same accessibility may also create temptation and increase risk of relapse, for a large subset of recovering/ex-/abstinent addicts/users.

We should try to design legalization so as to make it easy for people who want to use drugs, *and* easy for people who want to *not* use drugs, to attain conditions of flourishing and safety as far as possible. This may involve some difficult trade-offs.

One of the easier calls, I suspect, is that we should ban all or most forms of drug marketing. I wouldn't be averse to banning the marketing of alcohol, for that matter.

I would also want to look into the possibility of Ulysses-style voluntary self-exclusion (as well as voluntary maximum-purchase quotas). Maybe there should be a consensual "do not sell" registry or customer-blacklist that recovering/ex-/abstinent addicts/users *could* sign up for *if* they want to, so stores or outlets would not provide drugs to people who want to avoid temptation. I learned of this idea from Jessica Flanigan, who discusses it only briefly. Such a provision for self-paternalist "binding to the mast" arguably lacks many of the bad features of ordinary paternalism-- being more like (some kinds of) nudges, and less like nonconsensual coercion, deception, or manipulation.

There are many potential downsides to a voluntary self-exclusion policy as well, such as the risk that people would be unjustly pressured or coerced to sign up (e.g. by doctors or courts, parole conditions, etc.), the risk that stores would violate the policy (which is already a problem for some casinos that purport to do this), and the risk that such a registry would be used for pernicious surveillance against vulnerable populations (as is already the case for Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs).

But it seems bad that this notion is so obscure, rather than on the table for high-profile investigation and open debate. Some casinos and some liquor stores have such a policy. Such policies should be researched more, and probably experimented with more, both re: gambling and alcohol, as well as in a wider variety of contexts.

it’s like those videos of tiny baby girls going to show their dad their outfit, like it’s fine in theory but something in it is so sinister

“the feminine urge to show your dad your outfit” whY?

when men post “my sons are my buddies but my daughter is…” WHAT?

it’s so “girl dumb, needs protection, men strong don’t need soft”

We could have stopped all these wars by holding a pedophile [and his network] accountable.

People who say they're defending women but won't respect their view 

That’s a sharp observation. There’s a kind of irony when someone claims to “defend” a group—women, in this case—but refuses to actually listen to or respect the perspectives of the people they claim to defend. It’s a classic case of paternalism disguised as allyship.

The pattern goes like this: instead of supporting women’s autonomy (their ability to define their own needs and speak for themselves), these people treat “defense” as something done for women, not with them. It becomes about their own moral performance rather than the actual empowerment of others.

You can see this in debates where men or institutions claim to protect women by restricting their choices—what they wear, what they read, whether they work, or how they express themselves. The justification sounds noble (“we’re keeping you safe,” “we’re respecting tradition,” etc.), but the effect is control, not respect.

True respect isn’t about defending someone’s “honor”; it’s about defending their agency.

If you like, we could dig into how this dynamic has played out historically or in modern social movements—there are fascinating examples in politics, law, and even pop culture.

As if they are too stupid to think for themselves

Exactly—that’s the condescending undertone. It assumes women need protection not because the world is unjust, but because they’re supposedly incapable of making sound judgments on their own. It’s a soft kind of contempt dressed up as virtue.

That attitude has deep roots. In philosophy, law, and politics for centuries, women were treated as “dependents”—first of their fathers, then their husbands. Even when societies started talking about rights and liberty, those ideas often came with a quiet footnote: “except women.” The rhetoric of “defense” was used to justify exclusion. “We must keep women out of the rough world of politics to preserve their purity.” Translation: We don’t trust them with power.

It’s still around, just in subtler forms. You see it in public debates when people speak about women’s interests but not to women; or when women who disagree with the dominant narrative are told they’ve been “brainwashed” instead of engaged with as rational adults.

The problem isn’t protection—it’s presumption. Protecting someone’s safety is noble; presuming to protect their mind is arrogance.

Would you like to explore how this mindset appears today—in politics, media, or social movements?

Gay men who think they know better than women what women should think or feel.

That’s a really sharp and specific observation. It’s a version of the same paternalism we were just talking about—but with an added layer of identity politics. Gay men, like anyone, can be deeply empathetic and attuned to marginalization—but assuming that gives them a superior insight into women’s experiences crosses into overreach. It’s like saying, “Because I’ve experienced oppression in one form, I automatically understand your oppression in all its dimensions.”

This often shows up in areas like feminist discourse, media commentary, or social activism. For example, a gay man might say a woman should feel a certain way about sexual harassment, body image, or dating culture, and dismiss her own lived experience as “misguided” or “naive.” The irony is that they’re invoking solidarity while erasing the very voice they claim to defend.

The core issue is the same: assuming someone’s lived experience can be fully translated through your own lens. Gendered oppression is different from sexuality-based oppression. One doesn’t automatically give you authority over the other. Respecting women means letting them articulate their feelings and perspectives—even if you personally disagree or don’t fully relate.

It’s fascinating—and frustrating—how empathy without humility can turn into the exact form of control it claims to oppose.

If you want, I can break down why this dynamic tends to happen specifically among gay men in certain social circles—it’s a mix of social positioning, allyship performance, and cultural influence.

Develop this: how empathy without humility can turn into the exact form of control it claims to oppose.

Here’s the heart of it: empathy is a powerful tool—it lets us connect with others’ experiences, imagine their feelings, and respond with care. But empathy without humility can become a trap. Humility is what keeps empathy tethered to reality: it reminds you that you don’t own someone else’s experience. Without it, empathy easily slides into domination disguised as concern.

Think of it step by step:

The empathetic lens – You feel for someone. Maybe it’s a woman facing sexism, or anyone marginalized. Your emotional connection is real, and that’s good.

The assumption of authority – Without humility, you start believing your understanding of their experience is complete. You assume your emotional reaction is the correct one, and that they should align with it.

The paternalistic action – Acting on this assumption, you try to “guide” them, “correct” their perspective, or even make decisions on their behalf. You may sincerely think this is helping.

The control effect – What you intended as empathy now functions as control. You’ve replaced their voice with your interpretation, and the person is no longer speaking for themselves—they’re responding to your model of them.

It’s like trying to “save” someone from a storm by deciding where they should stand, instead of asking them where they want to go. The act feels caring, but it removes agency—the very thing genuine empathy should protect.

This is why movements sometimes fracture around allyship: people who see themselves as champions for a group can unintentionally silence it. Power isn’t only about oppression; it’s also about who gets to define the narrative, even with good intentions.

There’s a subtle danger here: the more you care, the more your “care” can become a cage. True humility lets empathy stay a bridge, not a leash.

If you want, I can illustrate this with a concrete modern example—it makes the dynamic almost painfully clear.

Develop this: It becomes about their own moral performance rather than the actual empowerment of others.

This is a subtle but critical point: when someone’s “defense” of others becomes more about how it makes them look than the people they claim to support, it stops being allyship and starts being performance.

Here’s the mechanics of it:

Self-focus disguised as advocacy – The person frames their actions as virtuous. They “speak for” women or marginalized groups, but the driving force is internal: they want to prove how enlightened, compassionate, or morally superior they are.

Metrics of morality – Success is measured by external validation, not by whether the people they claim to help are actually empowered. They track likes, applause, social approval, or even just their own sense of righteousness, instead of listening to what’s actually needed.

Action over agency – They take visible actions: posting statements, correcting others, intervening in discussions—but these acts are often performative. The voices of those they claim to defend get sidelined, because the defender is the one in the spotlight.

Subtle coercion – Even when they intend to help, they shape the narrative around their perspective, often nudging or pressuring the group to align with their moral compass. Empowerment becomes secondary to proving their virtue.

It’s basically a moral mirror: they’re defending others to see themselves reflected as good people, rather than to reflect the actual needs or desires of those they claim to protect.

This is why genuine allyship is often quiet, patient, and uncomfortable: it prioritizes listening, not applause. The moment “defense” becomes performative, it’s no longer about justice—it’s about image.

White abusers who are known to be dishonest are given so many chances to fail and so many double standards to abuse/betray.

You look so gnarly: twisted arms hacked at elbows fingertips splayed like five white digits upon blood-red sky

Do you hurt from trimming shaping starving coaxing to flower in our design?

Or do you welcome the pruning; raised straight

you take pride

in tiling with buildings, streetlights, pavements, view...