File Directories

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/22684730/students-file-folder-directory-structure-education-gen-z

A new up-and-coming issue has come to light recently wherein the newest generation of students, mostly "Gen Z", are not simply unfamiliar with the workings of file directories, but they are in fact entirely dumbfounded by the concept. This article was somewhat unsettling to read as it made its point more and more clear. These students had an issue running a program because their files were misplaced. They didn't simply not know where the files were, it continues, but they didn't even understand the concept of being asked "where" the files were. The very notion that the files existed somewhere specific on the computer was incomprehensible - to me this is like finding out an entire generation has secretly never figured out what "blue" is and we're all finding out all at once, eyes wide in horror as we behold large swatches of doe-eyed children looking back at us with pleading eyes.

"What do you mean WHERE are the files?"

"What do you MEAN what do I mean where are the files?!"

The article goes on to terrifyingly wax philosophical on whether it's actually truly bad that students do not understand that files exist somewhere specific on their computers, even so far as to tout the Gen Z method (which is, just to clarify, essentially keeping every file in a massive, entirely unorganized glob and using "search" to find them) as POTENTIALLY SUPERIOR to... knowing how to locate files on a computer.

Just to make clear the playing field, I am not particularly computer savvy. I am "learned basic HTML to make my Neopets web page" years old and have opened MS-DOS in safe mode to try and fix my computer more than once. I have what I would call a very basic understanding of computers. What I am most put off by is not simply some young rapscallions not knowing what fer, but rather that this is precisely the process through which generational knowledge is LOST. 

The article tells professors to more or less buckle up and "adapt", as the times they are a changin', and we are all but promised that soon, understanding file directories will go the way of cursive. 

The problem here is that the computer files still exist somewhere specific on the computer. While you may be able to save all your documents to your desktop and ask the computer robot to find those for you, the programs and applications that the computers run will still use files and place them in particular places. File directories are also highly important for situations wherein you have two files that may require the same name. Programs and applications will NEVER simply dump all the files on the desktop along with everything else. In order to operate a computer with some degree of savvyness, you must know that files exist in a particular location on your computer. To lose this knowledge leaves it in the hands of the few, giving the ones who have the knowledge much more control and power, whatever that means in the scope of this context. The common man will have absolutely no idea how this technology works. 

We are already far and away in this sort of scenario - even I haven't a clue how to build a computer. I don't mean, buy them online and plug all the pieces together, but rather, what are they made of, how are they made, and how do these components work together to allow a computer to operate? The fact that very few people possess this knowledge is exactly how you wind up with a post-societal collapse scenario with lost ancient technologies that no one understands now. The problem is that our entirely society is built on the backs of computers. Not understanding file directories is simply one more marching step toward the inevitable abyss of generational knowledge loss. This causes a degeneration of our systems - to reiterate, the systems society is built upon - rather than a refining and improving of them. Essentially, the foundations of our every day lives are highly complex structures that require an intense knowledge to troubleshoot and maintain - and the people coming into their own, getting ready to take over the maintenance of these systems have no idea how they work. They know how to USE them, but they do not know how to pull it apart and put it back together, how to comprehend it when it may malfunction, troubleshooting such issues through the basic structures. They rely on the system itself to debug itself, tell us what's wrong, and fix itself. What happens when it does not?

Millenials, with everything we are blamed for destroying, are paradoxically likely the most tech savvy generation the common peasants will ever be. Generation Z is going to be far less tech savvy - indeed, a related problem I saw recently as well is that teenagers and very young adults are falling prey to scams online almost as much as the elderly. The baby faced newest generation of adults about to enter the workforce are as technically incompetent as our grandmothers and we will have to drudgingly coax our children through simple tech support concepts as bewildered as we were with our elders ten years ago. As long as it's working as expected, they are fine - it's when things go wrong that we will need to worry.

The article even has the audacity to compare the basic comprehension of file directories to other computer "skills" like, I can't even believe they wrote this, using Instagram. If you've understood everything I have written thus far, being able to use a functioning program is not even the same concept as understanding a basic aspect of computer operation. How can a professor say something as exhausting as "well those kids may not understand how files exist within directories on the computer and how this is crucial to the underlying function of programs and applications on the computer, but golly do they know about that Instagram." Instagram sometimes malfunctions, but it simply tells the user to hold tight while it's fixed. If they have an error, they send a ticket to support. They know how to USE Instagram, but they do not know how Instagram works. They don't know how anything works. This is like knowing how to follow a recipe, but having no idea why you're doing what the recipe says. The one who writes the recipe holds all the power over whatever you will cook, as you have no idea the significance of any given step, process, or ingredient. 

Not knowing why the computer does what it does is like not knowing why you're using baking powder, or what happens when you don't use it right. It will all be fine *as long as there are no problems*. It's when there are problems, that there is a problem. And that's the problem.

The worst part appears to be that, by the sounds of it, no one is going to try and fix this. Professors are told to simply buckle up and adapt to "search 2,341 files in desktop" as the common knowledge of their students. That we would simply bow out and allow this knowledge to pass away with the Gen X and millenial generations is depressing, if not par for the course with our new dystopian future.

Pregnant People

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/09/pregnant-people-gender-identity/620031/

Like most critical theory movements, this one has likely been brewing behind the scenes for many years, but even I have only just recently seen for the first time the mainstream push to erase the concept of women in regards to their capacity as child bearers. The concept of referring to pregnant women as pregnant people and other analogous language shifts first popped up, as far as my memory serves, less than a year ago. Actual hospitals and medical centers have started to adopt such exhausting phrases as "pregnant people" or "birthing persons", and terms like "chest feeding". 

Many of these shifts are not even necessary as men do on fact have breasts and can even get breast cancer. It is done exclusively at the behest of a tiny fraction of the population that has trained themselves to have mental breakdowns over small nuances in language useage. Despite the fact that men have breasts, women who have decided to live as men get very upset at their breasts - which all humans have - being referred to as they are, which is breasts, and would still be if they were actual men. Considering women who undergo hormone replacement therapy are less likely to be able to successfully breastfeed in the first place, it's even more unnecessary. But why precisely, you may ask, is such a language shift SO egregiously unnecessary?

What's important to note firstly is that the percentage of the population this affects is practically null. Hormone replacement therapy renders many women unable to become pregnant, since such "therapies" are identical to chemical castration procedures. This leaves women who have decided not to undergo HRT and simply choose to unilaterally declare they are actually men, or "neither" as it were, and then carry on as usual, and by some completely unknown and mysterious process, become pregnant. This is even a smaller percentage of the population that says they are transgender, as the majority of transgender people do not wind up pregnant.

So what we have already, without going any further, is an absolutely miniscule population taking our language usage hostage in a way that is highly offensive, if not simply mystifyingly obtuse, to the vast, overwhelming majority. Referring to WOMEN as "birthing persons" is shocking and degrading to any normal person. If I had to guess, it was likely shocking to the majority of LGBT proponents, but their tribe loyalties forced their cognitive dissonance to engage and accept such a disgusting term. 

Even I will admit "pregnant people" is less obtuse a term and does not carry such dehumanizing qualities as "birthing person", but it is somewhat more insidious as it easily slides by people's radar. Pregnant women are indeed people who are pregnant and it appears rather innocuous, almost an innocent slip of the tongue, as one was used to referring to a person of unknown gender as "they" since the long gone days of yore, well before all of this language alteration. All pregnant women are in fact pregnant people, and if this were ten years ago it would appear just like a normal word replacement someone made while not thinking very hard about what they were saying. Now it's a severely intentional decision meant to reprogram the way everyday persons think about the people who may become pregnant.

While all of this is entirely fair and easily understood by rational people, the argument is still made that it is so important to use these "inclusive terms" (at the expense of women's identity) not simply because transgender people get their feelings hurt by normal language, but because such exclusive language and adherence to well established and understood real concepts in some way manages to cause transgender people to not receive proper care. The article linked mentions briefly that it helps remind women in the OBGYN waiting room to "not stare" at the unaccompanied man who appears to be a patient at the women's health center. 

My OBGYN does in fact care for at least one woman who lives as a man, as I've seen her before, three years ago. I did not stare nor did I make any comments, because while I know this woman has made unwise decisions, I do not care and I mind my own business. I actually fully believe people who have made unwise decisions to mutilate their bodies and undergo procedures to change their physical appearance for the sake of vanity should be able to receive full, comprehensive, and compassionate medical care. They deserve rights and privacy as any other human being does. What they do not deserve is the entire upheaval of society on their behalf BECAUSE OF their personal choices to undergo physical and chemical procedures to live their private lives in such a way. They should never have been able to do so and that we are here now is frankly embarrassing.

My OBGYN has hundreds and possibly thousands of patients. I've been there a very large number of times in the last five years, having been pregnant four times in that timespan. I have seen this transgender patient once, ever, and even then there is no guarantee this was actually a transgender patient. She may not have been a normal woman who chose to mutilate herself and could have been someone born intersex but raised as male, but still possessing female anatomy. There is no way to know, especially because as stated I mind my own business.

It is precisely my staunch belief in minding one's own damn business that makes me so frustrated to see this forced language shift. It is said to be done for the safety and in service of acceptance of tiny fractions of society that feel maligned, but really it is the HOA of Language, telling all of us what we MUST do on our own damn property. The words used by the news, media, government, and general populace are being policed by a tiny, miniscule - have I hammered this point in enough - portion of absolute busybodies who are not happy to leave us all alone to mind our own existence as we please. Thus continuing to use the terms and phrases of sane people is the unapproved house siding color of our collective society, subject to punitive measures by the association.

All the aforementioned points are very important, but perhaps the most pertinent part of this discourse lies in the fact that the people demanding such forced language shifts have chosen to do these things to themselves. While people do not choose to have gender dysphoria and/or body dysmorphia, they do choose to alter their physical bodies. 

There is a can of worms here, but to not get too buried in tangents, it is not proven that body alterations and hormonal treatments actually "fix" the problems such people have. It is widely known and accepted that gender dysphoria in adults is accompanied by additional diagnoses of mental disorder. It has not been proven that those accompanying disorders are caused by the dysphoria and thus solved by superficial gender transition. In fact, if we were to put aside our worries of offending the LGBT coalition, we would see that the fact that these accompanying diagnoses remain after transition (though sometimes the "excitement" of transitioning stifles them temporarily) and still require treatment would appear to STRONGLY suggest that the the accompanying diagnoses are the cause of the dysphoria.

There is also a point to be made that a lot of innocent people have been manipulated into accepting this position in their life by the medical conglomerates that look to profit off of their gender dysphoria long term (HRT never stops for the remainder of a transitioned person's life) and the misguided media and pop culture that idealizes transitioning as the solution to all of their problems. While this is unfortunate, it remains that it was still their personal choice to undergo such procedures.

Thus, what we are engineering is a full rework of colloquial, well understood language useage for the sake of a minute population of people who made personal choices to change themselves. We used to understand that people who make such personal decisions to live life in ways that society is not catered toward must simply accept the inconveniences that come with these decisions. It is a new and exhausting phase where we are trying to change completely acceptable, well established, and fully functional parts of society for those that would choose to live outside of these parameters to the detriment of those who have not made such drastic decisions. 

It is continually argued that it is NOT a detriment, inconvenience, or affront to anyone else to use such obtuse phrases as "chest feeding", by the same people who argue that simple terms may make some people literally suicidal. These same people argue that language can cause violence, that dehumanizing language attributes to vast underlying societal inequality.

I have to say that I agree, which is precisely why it's so dangerous to so brazenly undermine women and motherhood with these new terms. Intersectionality is self-defeating in this way, as one ideology MUST necessarily prevail, as we cannot accommodate for all of these nuances together. Critical theory leans toward engineering society not simply toward the lowest common denominator, but to the absolute most obtuse outlier. I am and always have been a proponent of supporting and encouraging the largest number of people at the detriment of the fewest number of people. There are nuances, as there are to anything, but this debate is clear. This alteration of language is to the detriment of a vast swatch of human beings - female human beings - to the benefit of an overwhelming few. 

"...But I'm Not Religious."

A favored phrase for many who sense the spiritual reality of this world but are too embarrassed to admit it is that they "may be Christian" (or some other religion) or perhaps "may believe in God", but they certainly aren't religious. "Religion" to these people is, in few words, the legality behind a belief. They believe that "religion" is what creates pedophile priests and doctors who refuse to treat a man dying from the flu because he's gay, if that ever actually happens. Here's the big secret - it's a lack of religion that causes these things. The same lack of religious education that causes people to misunderstand their beliefs in a way that is damaging and bad to OTHERS (kicking your teenage daughter onto the street because she became pregnant out of wedlock) is what causes people to misunderstand their beliefs in a way that is damaging to THEMSELVES (i.e. sinning against God, against your own soul etc.).

Religion is, when done correctly, the means through which we work together as terrible, flawed people to understand what we are supposed to do in order to become more like Christ and follow Him and His commandments correctly. We gather together as followers to be each other's accountabillibuddies, under the direction of someone who should be well versed in leading us to be more like Jesus.

If you go to a church that says we should definitely kill gay people, that is a failure to follow Christian religion properly, not an example of it "working as intended". It's not that the system, the religion, doesn't work - it is being wholly misapplied to a faulty conclusion. Such heresy is wrong, as is the heresy that it's A-OK to be gay. These false ideas come into the Church the exact same way, they are simply opposite conclusions of the same problem - misusing scripture, letting our wicked hearts guide us. 

If you use your "spirituality" just to figure out how to live here on earth most pleasantly without actually considering its true, eternal purpose, you might not end up somewhere as pleasant. There are, in fact, "religious" rules for your "spirituality". Using bits and pieces of Christianity, the nicest sounding ones that cause the least trouble of course, just to augment your secular beliefs and lifestyle is atheism in a costume.

Now, you certainly don't have to go to church to go to heaven. However, this is more reserved for people who, for whatever reason, cannot get to a church even if they wanted to. If you can go to church, you should. If the church you go to preaches false doctrine, then either try to help heal that broken church, or go somewhere else. By not going to church when you could, you ignore that Jesus died to form the church. It's HIS church. 

Yes, 'church' refers to the body of believers and not necessarily a physical building. But I severely doubt people arguing this point are meeting with other believers for biblical lessons and teachings ANYWHERE. If they are, then good, you are, in fact, going to church. Good job. Otherwise, this argument is just used to justify people who are too lazy or uninterested in actually fully committing themselves to Jesus.

There is no "spiritual but not religious" for Christians. Religion is simply the catchall term for the collection of beliefs that one has about the truth of the world and of existence. It has a certain connotation and colloquial understanding, surely, but it refers to this collection of truth statements in which one confesses belief. Everyone has a religion, whether it's documented or not, as everyone has beliefs about the truth of the world. Essentially, one's vibe.

So, unfortunately, you certainly ARE religious, but it just may not be the religion you tell people you are.