Righteous Rage

Everybody gets angry. At least, everyone seems to, and I think it's important to understand what makes us angry so that we can avoid losing our temper, and figuring out how to avoid making others angry.
However, lately, I've developed a new habit which can show how anger does not have to be something we all avoid. In fact, anger can be one of the more beneficial emotions. The word of the day is: 'ANGER'.

Anger /'anggə/ n. 1. A strongly felt displeasure caused by real or supposed wrongs; wrath; ire. ♦v.t. 2. To excite to anger or violence.

I don't know if you've seen the movie Inside Out, it's a good movie, not the best from Pixar, but the basic premise is that all of the emotions in someone's head are anthropomorphised, and each has a specific job. "Joy" makes us seek out good things, "Disgust" avoids unhealthy things, "Anger" seeks out fairness, "Fear" avoids dangerous things & "Sadness", well . . . that's the point of the movie. But, we can avoid spoilers because I'm talking about anger, and as the movie explains, Anger has a purpose, we get angry when things are unfair, or when we see things as being unfair or wrong.

But there is a problem and that is that emotions, whilst they may have a "purpose", are not always very neat and tidy. We can lose our temper and hurt ourselves, hurt others, break things and lash out. Some people can't manage their anger. Especially young kids, when they get angry they tend to scream, throw things and hit their friends, parents and teachers. In fact, for the most part, when people get angry we just tell them to "calm down", because we don't know how to handle it, and we know it will get in the way.
Whilst I think you should do more than tell people to calm down, I'm not suggesting that you should just let people be angry, some people don't know how to handle their anger. However, I believe there's more to anger than just "the emotion that makes you break things when you feel like life's unfair".

I use anger, myself, in a few ways. I use my distaste to come up with cutting and intelligent insults & I use my anger as a thermometer of my mental state, and if I am getting angry, I may use that as a sign I need to change something.
But what I want to talk about today is the way that I use my anger to learn.

The last two posts I wrote for this blog were, in fact, examples of me using my anger as inspiration for blog posts. I wrote Unsafe & Unschooled because I was working in a café within a church which was spreading propaganda against Safe Schools because they wanted to preserve "traditional marriage", and stop transgendered people from using the right bathroom; this made me very angry. And my very last post, Drowning in Hysteria, I talk about it in the post itself, but in general I was noticing more and more examples of radical left-wing socio-politics that I know to be irrational; as someone who leans to the left, this made me very angry.
But those are not the only times anger lead me to an informed rant on this blog.

Respect, or GTFO - I was angry at people mislabelling Feminists.
The Right to Live, and let Live - I was angry at the lies about Euthanasia.
Why I Hate Muslim Men - I was angry at the hypocrisy of an Islamic Apologist.
The Bold and the Bravado - I was angry about common misuse of the word 'Brave'.
Insane Asylum, or How to Get Away with Racism - I was angry about Systemic Xenophobia.
The Twenty-Eighth Amendment - I was angry at the lie of "the Right to Bear Arms".
Who Spoils the Spoilers? - I was angry at people who Spoil stories.
Shallow Depth - I was angry at storytellers that pretended to write Complex Stories
Irrational Pride - I was angry at the way national pride could hide Jingoism.

And that's it. Believe it or not, whilst I may appear to rant and rave an awful lot, some of that is just the passion of my language. But these specific blogposts, I wrote because something made me angry, and that inspired me to talk about it.
I have always considered anger and hatred as a fuel that I can use to do good things, but lately I have learned to turn anger into a positive.
For all of the posts in the list above, my anger made me want to move, and once I gained my composure, I wrote. If you'll excuse my troping, originally my anger was akin to a Roaring Rampage of Revenge, I would use my anger as a means to rant once I had control of it. But these days, my anger is more akin to a Tranquil Fury, which was used in my last two posts. I do not just speak out, I use my rage as a means to learn more, and use what I learn to discover the best way to remove that which angered me. My anger does not just seek to resolve these triggers, but it succeeds, and I find I am unable to become angry about these issues again, since I know no way to see them as a problem, and if others present them as a problem, I show them the solution which I have learned.

So, why am I talking about this? Well, I'm not just bragging, I want to encourage you to do this too. This all began because I made a conscious choice, and I think if I can make you choose it too, you can become a better person.

You may now be wondering "what was the choice?" Well, it all began with the Safe Schools debacle. I felt betrayed by people I knew and trusted, I felt like I was indicted in their hatred for supporting their organization, I was frustrated, but more than anything I was angry. These people were homophobic and transphobic, and every fibre of my rational mind knows that that is wrong.
But, I didn't want to hate these people. The habit of dehumanizing, of hating, of thinking people are evil, this is too easy a reflex. I was struggling against it, because the concept made me anxious. These were the people I spent time with every day, which I laughed with, learned from, and in many ways respected. They were suddenly monsters.
I could not respect them, but at the same time I could not demonize them, but they were the "enemy" that as an LGBTQ ally I fight against. So, what could I do?
Well, rather than decide whether they were good or bad, I decided to talk to them. I spoke to my co-worker and asked for them to elaborate on their position.
When I did, I realized that they did have good intentions; and whilst they were wrong, they had the goal of helping kids. So, I came to the conclusion that, no, these people were not monsters, they were just Wrong. Capital "W" wrong. So, I explained what I knew, and tried to convince them. I softened their position somewhat, but after talking for five minutes, I quickly learned that I did not know enough. I knew this was wrong, but I didn't know the details, I didn't know what these policies were, and neither did my co-worker.
So, I was still angry. I was upset, because I had not convinced them of my point, but also I was stuck because I couldn't do more, I lacked the knowledge to make this problem go away. So, when I got home, I had a goal . . . my goal was to learn.
This is the conscious choice I was talking about. When you get angry, you might walk away, you might try to make your anger go away, you might distract yourself or talk to someone else. But I made the conscious decision to fix this problem, so I made a choice and the choice was this:
  "I will make sure that I am right."
Now, whilst the end result was me writing a blog post, that was because I wanted to share what I learned. But what actually calmed me down was not the blog post, it was the learning. I read through both sides of the argument and learned everything I could. My anger gave me the determination to read every single free module of the Safe Schools program, and the fortitude to stomach some of the hate speech and misinformation that was being produced from the propagandists. I not only wanted to, I had to, because I thought I was right, but if I wanted to prove it I would need the evidence, I would need to learn. And because my anger drove me forward, I learned more than I could have if mere idle fascination had inspired me.
Then, once I was done, I knew that I was right. Safe Schools is a program designed to make schools better and safer, and it does, and if you read that blog post I think you will be forced to agree because my evidence is compelling and my rationale is pretty much flawless. When I wrote that blog post, it wasn't out of mere anger, but also excitement at what I had learned. My rage became anxiety, my anxiety became excitement, and now I am nothing but content. I find nothing enraging about Safe Schools because I understand it, and if you don't I will gladly explain it to you (or, at the very least, direct you to my blog post).

Now, I'm not perfect. There are some things that people do which piss me off, and I don't control my anger properly at all times, but I'm still learning and I have already discovered several benefits. Not only have I written another blog post from my controlled anger, but on at least three occasions, I have come across people, religious, homophobic or just being needlessly rude; and rather than get angry and hate them or insult them for being wrong (as an angered person feels they have the right to do), I started to talk to them and ask questions, and engaged in discourse with them. And every time, I found that a conversation which at one time would have become an argument, maintained the level of a debate, and everyone moved on from those conversations having learned something.
Also, I've been using it to help my Beloved, who tends to have a very short fuse, deal with her anger. She is still having a lot of trouble, so I can't guarantee that this advice can teach you all Sagacious Serenity; but I can't see the harm in trying, especially if you are the sort to "fly off the handle" and lose control of your temper, because once you leash such a powerful beast, you will have a powerful ally at your disposal.

If you want to do this, but you're unsure how, I recommend a few things.

Firstly, you should start learning about logic and reason. In fact, do this now. A good place to start is with learning what a "fallacy" is, then looking into how they apply to conversation, reasoning and informal debate. If you want to be right, you should use the most reliable method for discovering and evaluating truth: Reason.
Otherwise, once you discover some fallacy, agenda or lie from those that disagree with you, you may think your work is done. It is not, you must show why it is wrong, or you're no closer to the truth than you were to begin with.

Secondly, remember, the target of your ire is not evil. Everyone is the protagonist of their own life story, and if they are suggesting something you know to be wrong, they are probably wrong or have misinformed opinions. If you are angry at a lesser animal, machine or inanimate object, know that it is just doing as nature intends/it was programmed/physics dictates. It's not evil (or, if it is evil, you'll never fix the issue until you figure out why).

Finally, never forget, be ready to be wrong. Your goal is to be right, so if something you believe is wrong, you need to eliminate it from your beliefs. You can't do that unless you are prepared to be wrong about what you know. If you're not sure how to go about that, go back to my first piece of advice, and learn about logic and reason. This makes everything a lot easier, so do that.

In conclusion, I'm the Absurd Word nerd, and I'm not just making this up from something I've been doing, I know that other people also use their anger for creativity, in fact some people can even us their anger to be inspired, and to inspire others, I know, because some of my favourite creators on YouTube are just people that were mad enough to speak out about something they know to be wrong, not just to rant and make noise, sound and fury, but to make things better. Anger may seem like something cruel, bloody and destructive, but I know from personal experience that some people can use it to create, to learn and even to inspire.
If this doesn't work for you, well, don't go getting angry at me about it . . . at least, not unless you're willing to try to prove yourself right.

Drowning in Hysteria

I am getting sick; tired; and sick and tired & sick and fucking tired of people who are trying to silence others. I am very hypocritical at times, I have a habit of seeing issues in very solid, black and white terms and it takes me a while to admit when I am wrong. But, I am proud to say that, even if it takes me time, I am almost always willing to listen to the other side.
I consider myself a skeptic, and it's only by testing my beliefs that I can expand my understanding. It's only by exposing myself to the opposing ideas that I can come to learn them in any way, and even if those ideas are wrong, through my understanding I can become more right. But, it seems that others don't seem to understand this . . . even if you are right, you should listen to the people that are wrong, because through their wrongness you can learn something.

The Word of the Day is: 'HYSTERIA'.

Hysteria /his'teareeə/ n. 1. Senseless emotionalism; emotional frenzy. 2. A mental disorder characterized by violent, emotional outbreaks, affecting sensory and motor functions.

I know this blog has become quite topical and reactionary lately, but I can't quite help it. I'm writing about what's on my mind, and THIS is on my mind.
See, not all that long ago, a sports commentator made a joke on the radio, and I need everyone to understand that this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all, because nothing in, of or about the joke even matters.
In essence, Eddie McGuire was chatting with some associates about a charity event called "Big Freeze at the G", where money is raised for Motor Neurone Disease by having people donate to see celebrities plunge into ice. In response, he said:
  "I reckon we should start a campaign or a one-person slide next year: Caroline Wilson. I'll put in the first donation, ten grand -make it twenty- And if she stays under, fifty."
Now, is this comment innocuous? Well, no. Because he went on to say they need to be careful, because the woman in question was "like a black widow" and everyone should stand around and bomb her. Now, this was a joke, but this was a joke at someone else's expense, and that is wrong. But, it's wrong because it's rude, there are friendly jives, roasting and jokes, but I think he took it too far. And since the man has a history of running his mouth off about people in ways that listeners find offensive, the issue is that this man is a bit of an insensitive prat, and someone really needs to tell him that he has some kind of problems dealing with the way he expresses himself, especially in regards to people he dislikes.

But people have been taking this comment, and claiming that the man was inciting domestic violence.

WHAT?! What the actual fuck, people?! No no no, I get that it can be stretched. Because domestic violence is part of the issues in regards to violence against women, and it is true that in this instance they were discussing committing violence against a person that is a woman.
But, whilst they were talking about violence against women, they weren't talking about violence against women. The actual subject of that conversation was not that they wished for a person to die by icy drowning, but that they all found certain aspects of that woman's character distasteful, and since her benefit results in their detriment, the inverse must be proportionally true. It's surprising that I have to get to this level of explaining how language works, but _here we are._

But, for context, Eddie McGuire is not married to this woman, he does not spend his time with her in his home, they are not even neighbours. The mere implication that his joke about drowning a co-worker is related to partner-on-partner violence is mind-bogglingly stupid. But even worse, in my eyes, it's incredibly sexist.
Because the only way to make that connection is to go:
Joke about drowning: Man hurt woman; Domestic Violence: Man hurt Woman, okay, yeah, same thing.
It is not the same thing; and implying that just because he has a cock and balls and she has tits, him joking to drown her is in any way related to a husband raping, hitting or verbally abusing his wife is disgusting, and if you think it does, you disgust me. I do not abide by sexism, and that is what this is.

But I'm not actually done, that alone was not what annoyed me. When I first heard that someone made a joke and people got offended, I just said "they're being silly" - because they are, Whilst the joke is rude, it's not offensive to me. It should be offensive to Caroline Wilson - because it was intended that way (it was rude) - but I don't see the need to be offended on her behalf, and in fact she has already responded, this is done in my opinion.
She came out to say that she expected an apology, and revealed that he was clearly vitriolic because she wrote a column saying he should implement a succession plan, because he said he considered leaving as President of Collingwood Football Club (after losing to Carlton one match), but she felt like he hadn't actually considered how the club would be run without him. In response, he made these cutting remarks.
This seems to confirm my suspicions that he does not know how to express his emotions in a positive way, showing a lack of professionalism, and he should apologize . . . and that's it, apologize, and maybe people should consider whether he knows how to conduct himself within the football organization, if he can't retort to a colleague suggesting he doesn't know when to quit.

So, problem solved, no drama . . . Eddie is still a dick, and Wilson clearly seems to be dealing with some office politics, but it's not a big deal.

Then . . . oh, and then, we're getting closer to the main event . . .
There is a commentator on television, his name is Steve Price. Now, Steve Price is also a bit of a dick, but I think he is good worth for television. And, he is good worth because whilst he is often pig-headed and brash, even seen as a bit of a shock jock on the radio presentation job which is his main profession, this isn't "Fox News". He is a media personality known for being conservative, opinionated, loud and decisive, but he is not unintelligent and he is not always wrong. In fact, his more conservative approach to some political issues is sometimes better than the alternative. Not always, not even the majority of the time, but sometimes he hits the nail on the head whilst the others are floundering around political correctness - for that reason, his input is valuable.
Now, he appeared on a show called Q&A [short for Questions and Answers, an interesting political program where any audience member can ask a Question, and a select panel of political, cultural and social celebrities; including politicians, scientists & experts (which rotates each week) give an Answer to those questions - it's an apt title. (and the presenter is well-versed at reining in political waffling and shit-slinging, so it's good television)].
Now, during a recent episode of this show, broadcast on the 11th of July, an audience member referenced the aforementioned Eddie McGuire incident, and asked how politicians planned on addressing the cultural issues which allow domestic violence to happen.

Now, there are two things you need to know before we get into the meat of why I am so annoyed. Firstly, Steve responded to this question, much like I did. In a nutshell, he said: These people are wrong, all that was said was wrong and people defending what was said was wrong, they should have apologized and they did apologize. That being said, the media is sensationalizing this into a more than it is, it really was just some stupid blokes joking around on a football show, this has little to nothing to do with domestic violence.
So, I am biased towards him in this instance, because he agrees with my opinion. I don't agree with all of his views, I even feel that he wrongly said they apologized right away which is not the case, but on the face of what he said, I would have to agree.

Secondly, you need to know that the question itself was incredibly biased and in many ways emotionally loaded. I watched the episode in full, and rewatched the scene many times. The questioner was named Tarang Chawla, and his exact question was this:
  "Sam Newman has caused controversy yet again for defending Eddie McGuire who joked about drowning Caroline Wilson. I work as an ambassador for Our Watch, White Ribbon and The Safe Steps Family Violence Response Centre. Male violence is the leading cause of death and disability for women under 45 in Australia.
My sister Nikita was stabbed to death by her partner in January last year with a meat cleaver. She was 23.
How will politicians in the media play a better role in bringing about long overdue cultural shifts so tragedies like what happened to my family are not normalized?"

If I need to explain why this question was incredibly loaded, then I don't think you understand what that means.

In response, Steve answered as he did "this is overblown", but then a fellow panelist named Van Badham replied saying that Steve Price and his ilk were part of the problem, that by diminishing this issue down to "just a joke" they perpetuate the very culture that the questioner would seek to shift.
Steve responded to her saying that she was putting words in his mouth, told her she should retract her statement saying he was as bad as Eddie McGuire as he would never make such a joke.
When she reiterated that he was indeed part of the problem, and told him that he should have used this opportunity to speak out against domestic violence, rather than defend the speaker considering that he had just given an example of his sister being the victim of domestic violence, he responded to her by saying that just because she was a woman, that didn't mean she was the only person upset by this.
To this, the audience gasped, because apparently this was an episode of Will & Grace, and I wasn't made aware of that fact . . .
She continued by saying that the issue was multi-faceted, and we needed to address the dichotomy between genders, and the negative stereotypes and presuppositions made of them.
To this, Steve said she was being hysterical.

I am a feminist, I believe in equality, I hate bigotry and sexism . . . but I 100% agree with Steve Price. Allow me to explain why . . .

That question, in itself, is a complicated little nugget, how do we bring about cultural shifts to avoid partner-on-partner violence?
But, it's based upon a faulty premise . . . the premise that this "drown my co-worker" situation is a part of a misogynistic culture. Now, do I think we are part of a Complicit Culture? Yes. (Complicit culture is a broader more fundamental, less confrontational notion of Rape Culture . . . I wrote a blog about it, read it at your leisure).
But, was Eddie McGuire's joke a part of Complicit Culture?
Well, no; to start with, I feel that Eddie's comments were not misogynistic. Whilst I can see that his comments could be indicative of a discriminatory mindset (he could joke about this with his male friends, but didn't address his female co-worker directly), and at a stretch could be seen as desensitizing people towards violence against women; I feel that our culture already responded. The media, commentators and the public (on social media) responded to this incident with a uniting "No Fucking Way, That's Not Okay".
Job Done. Drop it. Leave it alone. He was a dick, we told him to apologize . . . he did (some think it's not enough, but it's not their issue, it's Ms Wilson's). That's job done. Pack your bags, go home. Because our reaction to this issue was the right one. So, this situation was not indicative of that culture; in fact it represented a growing counterculture. Unfortunately, it represented it very poorly, because whilst it is good to respond to perceived implicit othering within the workplace, especially of the male dominated realm of football, we doused a matchstick with an ocean.

So, the question referencing this incident and saying "how do we stop this from happening in the future?" Well, we already did. We responded with overwhelming negativity to this incident, perhaps even too much, but this incident cannot be said to cause any domestic violence. If we encourage people to analyze their comments, and apologize when they are deliberately offensive, we create a self-conscious culture that will more readily analyze potential complicity in discriminatory attitudes. That is, in fact, the better answer to the question - that's how politicians should deal with it, by encouraging people to voice their disapproval for publicly displayed discrimination and gender-related offence.

Then why the severe reaction from the crowd? Well, because they'd been emotionally primed. I know this sounds insensitive, but that's because it is and it's a harsh fact, but that doesn't change the fact that is is indeed, a fact:
The hacking death of Nikita Chawla does not matter in regards to this question. That may seem heartless, but to be fair neither does the cancer-related death of David Bowie; the suicide of Robin Williams or the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
See, these people are already dead. I am sorry that she died, I wish someone could have helped her before things got out of hand, and I wish someone could have helped her husband to deal with the mental and emotional issues that would lead him to violence, before anyone got hurt. But, we didn't . . . that's sad, but it doesn't really change the content of either the question or its answer.
Not only that, but I think that Nikita Chawla should be more than just a bullet-point in a question on a television show, used to guilt the panelists into feeling sorry for women. She's not just a horror story, she was a daughter, a sister and a friend, and I think it is disrespectful for her death to be used in that way.

Unfortunately, that seems to be Tarang's only schtick, since after the incident, he once again brought up his sister in an article claiming that Price had the option of either choosing to feel upset for those being demonized for telling sexist jokes, or he could be upset for victims, like his sister, of male-on-female violence. To this, I have only one thing to say:
Utilizing the death of a family member as a tool for you to feel more determined in your crusade is deeply disrespectful. Nikita never asked to be a martyr, and it's wrong to idolize her as one.

But the worst part? I'm still not done. That's not what infuriated me to the point of writing this article. Do you know what was? After all of this, Steve Price showed up on a low-quality tabloid news program called The Project where some of his coworkers asked for him to respond to the backlash against him on the Q&A program. On this program, he was able to reiterate his position without the need for panel discussion - he was the guest, the focus of the panel, so he was centre stage to present his point of view.
In that medium, he reiterated his points more considerately, saying that he in no way condoned the joke, he was not defending the person, and made it clear that he is an advocate for support of victims of domestic violence, and his statement that "men can be just as upset" was in regards to domestic violence as a whole, because of the implication and context of the response. This, I feel, was a great response. In the heat of the moment, it may have appeared that he was attacking Van Badham's gender, but he made it clear that he was not, he was merely trying to express his opinion. Steve Price is not a man known for being tactful, but this gave him the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings from that evening.

But then, oh and then, he was harassed by the panelists of The Project. They explained that because of the history of the word "hysterical" that his comment of her being hysterical was deeply sexist. Hysteria dose indeed come from the Greek hysterikós which meant "suffering in the womb", which was believed to be a mental affliction of women, wherein they became irrational and emotional because their uterus was unsettled.
His response was merely (and, I'm paraphrasing) "I don't know the historical context of that word. I'd refer to anyone - man or woman acting that way as hysterical".
This was the response he got, also paraphrased because I haven't managed to find video of this incident online:
"Steve, because of the historical context of that word, you can't use that word to speak out against women."
And because of that statement, I am VERY annoyed . . . Why?

It's not just because that is the most sexist thing I've heard all year.

I am a feminist because I believe in gender equality, we are equal in what we deserve, politically, economically, ethically and socially. Society, culture and language are all integrated, and whilst the content of words may refer to separate genders, there's no context for words to be used exclusively by either gender.
Are we segregating words, now? Giving words different definitions depending on whether men or women say them, or whom they say them about? Context is one thing, but this isn't context, it's discrimination, saying that a word cannot be used by men, despite the meaning of the word having evolved over time?

And it's not just because it lacked any sense of self-awareness.

Because, it is 100% clear that hysteria is exactly what is going on here. In this instance, Mass Hysteria, as the media is making a great deal out of what is essentially a football commentator being a moron, and the public has responded appropriately. I have included the definition, hysteria is exactly the response causing all this drama in the first place. That's why this is the word of the day, because the issue here is that everyone is acting hysterically - emotionally and irrationally - towards a controversial issue. And whilst I don't agree with the joke that was said, any rational person can tell that a simple apology is all that is required in this instance.

No, it's not those things, what bothered me was the bigotry.

I believe in Freedom of Speech. Because without the freedom to speak, it means some forms of speech (i.e. styles, forms, meanings or kinds of words), some forms of speaker (i.e. creeds, races, genders, classes or nations of people)  or some speaking forms (i.e. mediums, means, types or forums of idea) must be discriminated against; it means that they (unlike other forms of speech) are not given freedom. Whether we are witholding words, people or ideas; in order to do so, we must first judge which words, people or ideas are less deserving. In my experience, no one is qualified to be the judge of free speech. And because no one is qualified, any means to silence speech gives both the "preferred" speakers and the "unpreferred" speakers the ability to silence others.
But worse than that, is that I don't think anybody is unworthy of being heard. You don't know what a person is going to say until they say it, and even if a person is known for being stupid, they may say something smart (for example, Steve Price. Whilst he is often wrong, he is also occasionally right in ways other people would not as easily come up with). And, even if they say something stupid or wrong, that's no reason not to hear their words. Children, students and curious adults all say things which are wrong, but we don't disallow them from speaking, instead we just tell them why they are wrong. The only reason not to listen to someone is if they are saying the exact same wrong thing twice, but even then it doesn't mean they don't deserve to speak, just that they do deserve to listen. Because most of the time, when someone say something which is wrong twice, it is because someone saying why they were wrong was in some way silenced.
For a fantastic example, just see this: Famously, Bill Nye once debated Ken Ham on the subject of whether Creationism was a viable scientific model. In this conversation, Mr Ham did not learn much, and we know why, because he admitted that nothing could change his mind because he was "a Christian", he was deliberately not listening because he had an irrational belief which no rational belief could unseat. But through allowing open discourse on the subject, at the end of that debate, people were more educated. On an Evangelist news site Christian Today, 92% of the audience agreed with Bill Nye's position. Open and honest debate is good for everyone. Even when the speaker is admittedly bigoted and wrong, by allowing open discourse, you create a better culture.

But by going on and on and on, we actually come full circle. Because, by whining and whining and whining about it, the problem doesn't get any bigger, but the "solution" does, and when the solution becomes bigger than the problem, people start seeing the solution as the problem. Silencing people who are engaging in open conversation; labelling people as bigots unduly; complaining about the style rather than the substance of discussion & acting hysterical every time something bad happens.
This is the reason why so many people oppose feminism in the first place. It has become so bloated and aggressive and reactionary that people have started to counter it with their bullshit, as I've mentioned before.
But through all this, I remain a feminist. Firstly, because I still believe in equality. And secondly . . . well, I'll cover that in an upcoming post.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and I hope you've learned something from this post. But if you haven't, or even if you disagree, the worst thing you could do is tell others they're not allowed to read it.

UnSafe & UnSchooled

I want to start this off by saying that I am not here to pick a fight. I may end up eating those words, but my goal is not to make people upset, to insult anybody or to imply that people are being willfully unkind. In fact, I'm not even here to change people's opinions. That may seem weird coming from a blog like this, I often say "I'm a Narrator, not a Dictator", because I just tell people things. I don't use actions to change the world - I often do seek to change opinions, so that others act differently - but today, I'm not.
Whilst I am of the opinion that LGBT people of all colours, kinds and creeds deserve equal rights in every strand, that is not the issue here. So, if you disagree, if you think that marriage between a man and a woman is in some way sacred; if you think that transgendered youth should not be given the chance to transition or be recognized as their gender identity & if you think that same-sex children do not have a right to sexual education, you're welcome to that opinion . . . for today, at least; if you want to argue that particular point, then we will do so on another day, on another post, and I will gladly explain why your opinion is unfounded.

But the reason I am here is not because these people's opinions are wrong, it's because their facts are wrong. There is no word of the day today, because I'm not exploring language, I'm just here to explain something. The Topic of the Day is: "Safe Schools"

If you are not Australian, you may not understand the specific political controversy I am talking about today, but I recommend you read these words anyway; because, with the current cultural climate, every country is going to have to come to terms with its homosexual, bisexual & transgendered citizens in the near future. This is just another instance of Australia trying to deal with hers.
See, we are about to have an election, which means political parties are starting to fight. All you need to know is that despite being the result of a leadership spill, our current Prime Minister is pretty popular and for a long time the Opposition Leader was barely a blip on the radar, but as we've come closer the election, the Opposition Leader has gone full-gear into his election campaign, and he's been gaining popularity. So, as a result, whilst the major parties are creating positive campaigns, minor politicians are fighting dirty with smear campaigns.
One of the campaigns [which appears to be spearheaded by the Australian Christian Lobby, but don't quote me on that] is targeting Christians and Conservatives with pamphlets and resources saying that if you vote for the Opposition, then you will support the Safe Schools program; and tacking on the addendum that the Safe Schools program is an extreme sexual education program that tells children to be gay and that gender is a fluid concept, and telling very young kids about sexual intercourse and deviant sexual practices. I know this, because I received this pamphlet in the mail, and it made me very angry.

Now, this is the reason why I am not here to change opinions, because although I am a pretty progressive and open-minded person, I can agree with that ideal (somewhat tentatively). I mean, I agree for different reasons - I don't think anyone should be gay, but I also don't think anyone should be straight; I think you should be yourself. I also don't think gender is a fluid concept, I think that it is on a spectrum, but I don't think gender changes (transgendered male-assigned kids were always girls, etcetera), and I don't think that different degrees of femininity or masculinity matter, the only people whose gender identity should be legally changed and recognized are people with gender dysphoria who wish to treat that affliction by undergoing transition. I also think that, whilst it's perfectly healthy for adults to do whatever they want to do sexually, as long as there is consent and no harm caused; children need to be taught sex-education for the purposes of understanding puberty, safety and respect, not how to mount a sex swing.
So, no, we shouldn't tell kids to be gay, we shouldn't tell kids to cross-dress or to consider their gender transient, and we shouldn't discuss erotic content with young children . . .

So, it's a really good thing that Safe Schools doesn't do that.

Let's start from the beginning. So, what is Safe Schools? Well, it began as a Coalition that was begun for the purposes of combating the discrimination of LGBTQI children, this coalition was a joint effort of several LGBTQI "Ally" organizations throughout Australia (Western Australian AIDS Council; SHFPACT; True; Working it Out; Shine SA; Family Planning NSW & the Foundation of Young Australians) coalescing to create a dedicated program that would help the victims of queer discrimination.
What they came up with was a program which took a two-pronged approach. For these minority students, they offered respect and access to support and resources online; and for the rest of the student body, they taught children about respect, diversity, being kind to one another and working together without discrimination, offering resources to children at risk of becoming abusive or abused.

This is not just hearsay on the part of the program itself; when I received the pamphlet in the mail it had the distinct, emotionally manipulative style of propaganda. So, I decided to look it up, and I perused every single free teaching resource from the Safe Schools Hub for children in Kindergarten to Grade 7.
Now, I looked up just that bracket because kids in Australia graduate Grade 7 at age 12 [in Queensland at least, it may be different elsewhere], and that's around the time when, on average, kids will be reaching puberty. Now, I personally don't see a problem with teaching young kids sexual education and safe sex; I don't think it causes sexual deviancy . . . but at the same time, I lack the appropriate knowledge to either confirm or deny the "best age" for a kid to be sexually educated. All I do know is that puberty is when most children become more curious about their (and their peer's) bodies, so I figured after that point, it's fair game.

As for why I only looked at the free stuff? Mainly, it's because I do not have the disposable income to spend money on teaching resources for the sake of curiosity. But the other reasons is that the major contention of this smear campaign is funding.
I want to take a quick moment to say, this is just funding, and if you decide to vote one way or another due to a like or dislike of this program, it won't go away. It will lose government funding, but this is a coalition of seven pre-existing organizations, and several of their resources are dependent on other government funded supporter organizations, of which there are 168. So, if you choose to vote one way or another, all it will mean is that they will find their funding someplace else. I honestly don't care who you vote for, I only care who I vote for (since that's all I can affect), but if you think voting against a party that supports this program, all you're doing is swapping out who finances this program.
In fact, I think that is the only reason not to support Safe Schools; the Australian budget isn't as plump as it once was, so if you think government funds should be spent elsewhere, this is one program that won't suffer too much from lack of government funding. See, even if the Australian Government support stops, the current program relies on the Foundation for Young Australians (a not for profit organization), and just this year (at time of writing) the Victorian government has declared that it will continue to fund the Safe Schools Coalition, as it was the first state to implement it and does not want to lose its benefits.
Whilst I see no reason not to fund the program, I can see the value in wanting to invest government money elsewhere.

But anyway, that aside, I actually looked into the resources, so: What did those resources actually say about homsexual and transgender children?

Absolutely nothing. Zilch, zip, nada. See, the beautiful thing about homophobia [and there is only one beautiful thing] is that the only thing you have to do to stop people from being homophobic is teach them to be nice.
The first few resources I read came in a couple of varieties, and whilst they were more or less complicated, and had a different focus, they fell into several common types.
One type was the "be a friendly community" resource, which were about why it's nice to have friends, how to make friends; talking about respect and also stuff about community and activities that made kids get to know how to cooperate with one another, as well as cyber safety. Another type of resource was the "thinking healthy thoughts" resource, for the younger kids, this focussed on being open and honest about your emotions - not sexual emotions, just being sad or happy; it was designed to make kids feel more comfortable when being honest about their mental and emotional health. Then for older kids, it had several bullying resources, including a resource that offered help to explain not only why you were being bullied, but also explained to bullies why they feel the way they do, and how to deal with their issues as well, without resorting to violence.
Thirdly, there was the "how to be nice" resources, which talked about good and bad behaviour, or how to play well with friends, or for older kids included discussions on cyberbullying as well as ethics, morals and discrimination, and how it is beneficial to embrace diversity.
See, discrimination is very simple. It's not a rational belief, it's often emotional; you don't need to enter into a theological, sociopsychological debate in order to be nice to queer kids, you just need to teach them the facts about why it's nice to be nice and the job is done.

Now, full disclosure, there was one resource that mentioned homosexuality. It was called "Say No To Homophobia", but there are two facts you need to know: Firstly, the link didn't work, because the page had been moved; and secondly, it was an external link to the BeyondBlue website - it was a third-party resource, it wasn't even funded by the Safe Schools program.
Oh, and there was one resource for older primary school kids that was about sexual education . . . it was about sexting (i.e. sharing sexual photographs or information about yourself via phone or text message). However, it was focussed on heterosexual relationships, and it had one focus "sexting is illegal, don't do it". So, there was one overt "sexual education" resource, and it was aimed at straight kids.

Now I want you to ask yourself a question, because I asked myself this as well:
"Why would a program, whose main website says they are dedicated to stopping discrimination of homosexual, intersex and transgender minorities include so many resources that are not targeted at queer discrimination, or aimed at straight kids?"

You can consider your response, but I found only one conclusion: Safety
See, this program is called Safe Schools, and if you wish to teach people not to discriminate, you can't just focus on one minority. For two reasons [again with the two reasons], firstly, by ignoring other minorities when saying "don't discriminate", you create discrimination by silence, even if you ignore the majority it still would be othering, and it would paint a target on their back, the same way that the "anti-bullying wristbands" backfired. So, in order to make it safer for queer kids, you need to make it safer for everyone.
Secondly, one of the major causes of bullying, discrimination and mental health issues is stress and the sensation of impotence; when someone is stressed they may take it out on others, and bullying can be caused by those who are abused and associate violence with authority, or those that feel some form of self-pity or low self-esteem, to the degree that they externalize these feelings by making others feel worse than they feel - it's a simplified explanation, but it's true that victims of abuse often become perpetrators, and bullying is abuse, no matter what form it takes, emotional, physical or psychological.
Whether incidental or by design, Safe Schools combat discrimination of the few by teaching respect to the many. There's nothing sinister or underhanded about it. They very openly say "we want to get rid of transphobia and homophobia" on their website.

Now, there is still this pervading belief that they are telling kids to imagine what it's like to be gay, and that it tells kids it's okay to cross-dress. These are the resources often quoted as "corrupting the children", but these are not resources that that are part of the safe schools program, those rumours are based off of student-made resources, and third-party programs.
See, some of the teaching tools [for highschool kids, mind you] include lessons which centre on having the students create their own anti-discrimination posters or taking part in events or activities that celebrate diversity, and one of those has been floating around as evidence of "the gay agenda", but it is merely a self-motivated student encouraging a kind of diversity. There are also third-party websites which ask for student input in regards to their mental health, and several of these relate true stories from homosexual and transgendered teens, it is not a resource administrated by Safe Schools.
In regards to reports of a module that asks kids to think like a homosexual, the Safe Schools Coalition had only one thing to say:
  "The role play activity that has been discussed in media today is not and has never been part of Safe Schools Coalition Australia (SSCA) resources." - SSCA

Finally, the fears about little boys using the little girls bathroom, and vice versa? Whilst that is a topic of contention, and Safe Schools supports the right of transgendered children to use the bathroom in the manner which does not make them feel uncomfortable, the fact of the matter is that no matter what Safe Schools supports, the law is the law - we recognize transgendered gender identity rights in this country, so only boys can use the boys' bathroom, and only girls can use the girls' bathroom, even if those boys and girls are trans - but there are legal parameters that prevent people from cheating the system. A boy can't just declare himself female and run into the lady's loo any more than I can declare myself "authorized staff" and run into a bank vault.
Safe Schools does not tell kids they can just use whichever bathroom they want, that's a lie, and even if it did it doesn't change the fact that this is just a teaching program, not legislation or even curriculum, it doesn't change the current bathroom segregation legislation in any way, not one iota.

So, no, there's nothing about Safe Schools that sexualizes young children, encourages deviancy, causes children to question their identity or indoctrinates children into accepting a political ideology (unless "be nice to people" is a political ideal). It just encourages diversity, acceptance, respect, mental health and has an overall code of conduct exemplified by the ideal that school should be a safe place for all children.

The only possible justification you could have to fear or dislike Safe Schools is if you honestly believe that discrimination is a good thing which should be encouraged. If you honestly think that, well, you're wrong. Treat others as you would like to be treated, that's Sociology 101; we are nice to one another and do not discriminate, because it's beneficial for everyone if we treat everyone well.
Or, to paraphrase Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Transgendered, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Transgendered.
Next they came for the Homosexuals, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Homosexual.
Then they came for the Bisexuals, and I did not speak out— 
Because I was not a Bisexual.
Finally they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me . . .

Today, I was not here to change your opinion, I was here to present you with the actual facts in regards to this whole Safe Schools "controversy", because when you know the truth, it's not controversial at all, either you think schools should be a safe place for kids, free from discrimination, or you don't. If you don't, I vehemently disagree with you, but you're allowed to be wrong. Just don't tell me, or I'll probably want to debate you on it. If you do, I recommend you get your local school to join up, it's a pretty cool program.
But if you think that this is an example of the "gay liberal agenda" or that by falling for this propaganda, you in any way address your own views in regards to LGBTQI, or prevent others from accepting them as part of the community, you are wrong. The truth is, the only reason the Australian Christian Lobby created this campaign is because the Opposition Leader said they wanted to legalize same-sex marriage, and they want to terrify everyone into voting against that policy by saying that support for the Opposition is support for sexual deviancy. But I'm not here to do that. If you don't like same-sex marriage, vote however you like, because even if you vote against the party that plans on same-sex marriage legalization, there is still a referendum to be held after the election anyway.

In conclusion, I still don't care who you vote for. Personally, I don't even think this is the most important thing to consider in this upcoming election (although I would love to downvote the propagandists that spread this bigoted fear mongering). You see, I honestly believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, you can feel about this in whichever way you want. However, you are not entitled to your own facts. These are the facts, and if you feel the need to dispute the verisimilitude of anything I have said thus far, bring it to my attention alongside a primary source that affirms your claim, otherwise you're just another poor sod falling for fear mongering, bigoted propaganda, and you need to learn how to do some critical thinking before you inflict anyone else with your opinion.

The Much Too Perfect Weekend

I had the most perfect time last weekend. Me and my family went down to visit my gran.

Auntie Denise was there. And the cousins. Like Peter. Oh, my god, Peter, we had a few laughs
Mum went shopping and got a new dress. A green one. It's not usually her colour.

Shopping's not really my thing, but I went along anyway. What else could I do.
City's not like it is back home, it's friendlier. It's nice to talk to strangers sometimes.
Right after we went shopping we went to see a movie together. I haven't done that in ages.
Each of us got some popcorn, except for Gran. It gets stuck in her dentures!
And that afternoon we had a roast. Just like we always do at Gran's house.
My favourite part was the desert though, custard tart. I ate like 3 serves of that!
I felt tired, but the rest of the family wanted to watch a film, so I joined in anyway.
Nobody could get the telly working though, so we just told old family stories.
Grandpa told us about the time he lost his car in the city and spent the day looking for it.

Oh yeah, I'd heard that story before a hundred times, but I can't complain.
Night was really getting dark then, so we all went to bed.

Then the next day, we went down to the old fishing hole.
Herring are supposed to be all about this time of year, but we didn't catch any.
Everyone else had fun though. But it was just what I was expecting.

I can't complain really, it was a fun time. At least . . . I think it was.
Not like it was any different from last year.
Sure we did it all last year. The shopping, the movies, the fishing.
I didn't complain last year, did I? Or the year before that. I just accept it.
Don't worry, there's nothing wrong. There can't be. I just accept that this is my life.
Every single year.

Lost Chapter - Eʀʀᴏʀ.606: F̺̩̩il̄̚e͖͙̳͍̒̏͘ ̠̼̤̲̐̄̌̄̈̇ͫN͕̹͚̦̜̠̄͗͑ͬ̇̋͠ö̤͈̺̆̈́ͅt̨ͩ͗̂ ͥ̈ͥF̯̭͕̹̱͈͔͞o̻ͬ̾ͬu̫̫ͣ̄n̰̹̲̰͈̅ͣͧ̿̚͝d̪̖͉̾

[b]012.0 | Archive Ref #: b12.-216-X(L)-m01 | [b]13.0 

  After the last two occasions of having my documents, pilfered, mistreated or destroyed, I decided to begin digitizing some of my more precious documents. I believed that it would make my information more secure, since I have a password protected laptop, and I kept the files within an encrypted file.
  However, just three days ago I was scanning several more images to add to the file, when I realized that I couldn’t add the new files. It said there was an unknown file error. I opened the file, and the computer froze. My laptop was infected with an insidious virus. It took me half a day, but I managed to clear up some of the malware with several free virus-cleaning programs I found online and run the computer in safe mode so I could save some of the files to a USB, but then I had to format the laptop. I lost all of those files, But this contains all the data that I could resurrect from that USB of corrupted files.

+

The Duke held his hands up to his face, but as his hands moved, the leather sleeves of his coat shuffled and whipped as though underwater.  “No . . .”
The Duke threw his hands down to stop the ship, but it was as though he was swimming through treacle. He grabbed the handbrake and twisted it sharply, then reached up for the ignition lever, but it was like he was pushing through mud. Then sand. Then stone . . . slowing slowing, the grinding was so slow, it sounded like a low growl. Then, stopped.
The Duke tried to look left and right, but time was almost entirely frozen; the attempt made his eyes hurt as though he was in a wind tunnel, the air was like a solid. He tried to blink, but it took a minute just for them to close.
“How is this possible? My body has slowed, but my mind is still as swift as ever,” thought the Duke. “I’ve never encountered something like this before.”
As his eyes finally managed to open, there was a ding. The Duke wanted to turn around, but couldn’t. He was frozen in increasingly slowed time. All he could see was a bright rectangle of white light that shone from the door as someone entered the console room, with the sound of slow, determined footsteps.
That’s impossible. Nothing survives within the vortex, let alone something with two legs.
There was a soft scrape as the feet came to a stop, a few metres behind the Duke. There was a light click, a creak of leather, then the person spoke.
  “.͠ .͞ ͟. ̶Duk̷e,͝ ̷is̨ i̸t̀? ̨O͏r is̢ ͟i͜t́ '̛T͏h͜e̶'̷ Dukę?̡” asked the man, his voice sounded hoarse and dry, and his cadence was slow, as though he hesitated for a slight moment before each word. “I ne͜v̨er̀ c͢an͝ ̛qui̶t͞e ̸t́e̕ll.̡"Ỳo͜ur͠ ̶file ̛says͠ 'R͢h́o to̢ th͝e Fir̶s̴t,̴ T̛he͜t̴a-Eta ͝to the̴ Zero̧t͠h͘', ͢bu͠t ̵also Rat́h'ḩe; Doog͏h; Second;͝ Èǹd͜e̷r a̶n͢d̴ .͟ ͡.͞ ͝. ͞Mo͏r̢p̕h̡eús.́”
The Duke couldn’t respond. Any reply would take a week for him to speak, so he didn’t even try.
  “I͟ do ͞apólog̢ìze ̸f̴or̵ t͜h͞e ͏i̡ǹc͞o͠nven̨ienćé, but w̛e hąve app͜lie͝d ̡a͢ chr͏o͞n̸o͢l̷ogi̸ca̡l̸ ͟s͠u͜spensi̡on͜ o̴n͝ thi͠s tran̷s͠p̕ort̴ ͟and̷ its͜ ̡o̴ccưp͘a̶n͏t͞s.̷ ͜I͞t͞ ͡is ne̸c̢e͜ss͘ary̕ ̕foŕ ̀me̶ t͞o͟ s̵p̀èa̸ḱ ͜w̵it͜h yo͞u͝, ̶but͞ ͞ẁe have̶ ̴c̡a̵l̷cul̀at͘ed that,̵ w͡ere ͘yo̵u͟ t̵o̕ t͢a̧l̴k͝ ͘dùrįng ̧th̵is̡ ͏pre͜l͢imi̷nar̛y c͠o̡nve̛r̡sàt̡i͞o͡n͏ it͡ wou͝l̡d͜ mąk̡ȩ ͝oúr ͟m͡e̡s̷sag̡e͝ ̷m̢u͠ch ́le̸ss ̀eff̶ici͟e͠n͠t.͞”
There were further footsteps as the man walked around the console, the Duke looked to the left, waiting for the nerve endings to send the signal to his eyes, as the man moved around him. As the man entered the periphery of his vision, he saw that he was a white man wearing a grey business suit and had silver hair that was cropped short, and wore glasses, but he only saw the side of his face, but in his left hand the Duke saw a shiny metal briefcase.
  “I ͘r̕e̢pr̴e͜s̛e͏n͝t a ͠.̷ .̕ ̴.͢ ̷d̶épartmęnt ͏o͠f͟ ͟įnd̷i͝vidu͡al̕s̨ thàt, ͞on ̀occa̸s̛i͘o̵ǹ, ov͏erl͝o͝o͠k ̢wha͞t ͢goes͘ ́o̡n͢ ̧i̶ǹ ̀t̡ḩi͠s ͟p͏art̛ o͢f͢ the ͡c͡ont͝inu̶um.̵ ̸W͞e ̕do͟ ̴ơc̕ca͞s͢i͞on͘a̡lly ̀i̸n̨terac̢t, but ̸our͠ ͟du̢t͢ies ͞t̸end̛ to͝war̶d ̶a͢ mǫr̨e m̛án̶ager͞ial rơle,̶ ̶le̶ss ̸haǹd́s-́on̢. H͘owevęr͟,̴ w̛e h̛a͡ve͟ som͝e co̕mpe͞t̸i͘t̢ors̸ ͡in ̧t̵h̕is ͘re͜al̡i̛t̀y w̡hich͝ w̕e ͞h̶av̧e sou̶g̷ht tơ ov͘erp̕òwe͠r̴. Un̛f͟ortu͝na̷tely fo̢r ̕ųs, th̵e͡y ͢t̡e̡n̨d͢ t͡o͘ ͟plày͠ d͏irt͟y̴, of́ten ḑo͠n’t̶ fo͟llow ͜th͘e͞ . ̛. .̡ rules̡.͏ ̀W̶e͠ ̧beli̶e̸v̧e ͝yoų hàve͏ ̶m͘et ͢s͞ǫme ͏of ̸th͢eiŗ ͘r̴e̷prȩsen̵ta͠t̷i͘v̸es̸.̨ Ļ̷̶̸̵a̴̵͢͢͜C̕͞ŕ̵̷̢͠ớ͝͏̸i͘͟x̸̴͜ and K̕͢͜r͏͡͠i̡҉͡͠m̸̡i̕͜͝n͏̛҉̕e̶̵̡̢l̨͟.̀ You͡ ͢m̴ay kn̕ow̛ ́th͢em̨ ̧as L̶akwa, Gra͘n͏ ̸Gŗo͜k͢o or ̴Bo̵s̵s C͞r̨os͏s͞;̢ ͜a͟nḑ, ̕B̵aw̴on Cr̀ook̕,̛ ͝Cr̶im͜in͞al ͏or ͜thé ͞Ba͟ron̢,͟ ̨rèspeçtiv͠el͠y̴.̛”
“The Baron?” thought the Duke, “That name . . . the man who tortured Sylvia D’ath called himself the Baron, the man who made her regenerate . . .”
  “T͏hese͜ ͡ìńdivid͏u̕als are m͟embe̴ŕş of ͝a̶ ́larger͡ ͟am̶al͡g̶am͡a̢te͠d gro͠úp ͠wh͝i͏c͢h ͘t͘hre͡atens ̴not only ͡our̛ inte̸r͠e̢s̕tś, bu̵t ͢al̡s͘o ͡the li͞b͢e̷r̶ty͞ of͠ ̡a͢ļl t͠he̕ s͏ta͟ke͘hol͏d̢e͡rs o̸f̢ ͘this̛ r̨eali͞ţy.”
The businessman turned to look at the Duke across the console, and for the first time, the Duke saw his eyes. The businessman looked human for the most part, although he wore a dour face. But his eyes, despite resting behind a trendy pair of frameless, rectangular glasses, were a piercing, bright yellow. “Yo̢ur in̵te͜rfe͢r͠ence in̛ thi͏s̢ ma̷t͟t̀er ͟has͜ n͠o̕t̀ ̵go̵ne ͞unnot͝ićed,̶ ànd ̶w͞e͝ ̡w̸ȩre͜ at́ firśt̷ u͘n͞s̡e͞t͠tle̢d̴ ̢b̢y ͢yo̵ųr activìtie̛s ̷w͝he̴n̷ ͠y̨ou̕r ̵p͡át̵h̴ś ͘cr̵óssed ̀with ͘th̸o͢s̴e̶ of ̸o̧u͞r͟ com͏pe͝tito͝rs ͡.̸ ̷. ̵.̶ ͡bu͝t ͜a͞f̸ter ćar̵e͡ful͟ ́r̶ev͘i̡ȩw, we̴ ́h̨a͝ve decla̶réd y͡oúr̷ resu̶l̷ts t̛o͞ ́b̡e ̷.̧ . . im̵pre͠s͢śi̴ve. Y̧o͞u̧ ̀h͞a̧ve ̢prov̢e͟n̶ ͠your͜se͏l̵f̛ ͝to̡ ́be ̕a ͏val̸ùabĺe̛ as̢set̀,̛ D̢̀̀u̢͟͏̴k̵̸̡̕e̷̸̡҉̸.͝”
The businessman then walked forward, through the console, but not intangibly. As he stepped forward his legs seemed to stretch to the side. To the Duke, it looked as though he were a holographic projection whose lower half was clipping and glitching along the texture of the console, the image of his legs wrapping like a coloured shadow as it was emitted from the corner of the room, but from the look in the businessman’s eyes, the Duke knew he was not a hologram, he was a living creature that was manipulating his body to walk through a solid object.
  “The͡ i̸nd̨i̛vi͝dua͏l̀s ̢th̢a̕t ͝I͟ re̡ṕr͜e̶s̵e͡nt ̸l̴ikę t ̨offìćiate̴ ̧a͠ll͞ o̴f̸ our fore͟i̴g͠n͢ ͢ćont̨r̷a̕c̷to̵r̀s ̕by̛ ̨the̛ ͜boòk͞, ͘a̕s͟ you ̷sa̕y̡. So, I ̵am he͜ŗe ͏t͝o̕ ̧s͠u͝gǵe̕st͘ a͡ m̡e͝r̡ge͡r̕.̶ You̶ŗ ̶s͠ķi̧ļl̴s͞ ̨an̛d ̀abi̧l̛it̨íe̴s͟ c͜ouplȩd ́with͘ ͟oùr ̵r͞e͝s͏o͠ur̀c̢es̢ sh͡oul̴d̵ r͜es̀ol̕ve t̷his ̵p̷r̢oje̸c͘t̶ mo̷śt͠ effi͢ci̵ent̡ly̵. O̵ùr͝ ̡facilit̨y̡ ̧ca͝n offer͜ ̧ýo̧u ͜t͏he̡ ̵c̶apa͏c͡ity to bȩ án͢y̷wh͝ere,̷ ̸ḑo̢ an͏y͟ţh͜ing,̵ ̕b͜e ͢àn̷yon͟e .̵ ̀. .̶ as lon̢g as we͢ f͜i̧l͘e̡ ́the ̧appro̧p̴r̛ia̶te̕ ̛paper͝wor̶k͏. So̕,͢ are̴ ̨ýo͠ų interest̀e̶d i͡n͏ ou̴r̸ b͞us̡i̷n͢èss̵ p̢ro͢posal?”
The businessman held out his hand, and as he did, the Duke felt the time around him return to normal. He took a deep breath, and looked at the businessman’s outstretched hand.
  “What are you?” asked the Duke.
  “An ͞em̧pl͢oy̕e͝e ̵of my̧ ̵dȩp͜art͝men͜t,” said the man. “M͡y̛ r̛ole ͠i̴s͠ ̨signif̨i̢e̡d̨ by̢ p͘ersònn̴e͜l ̡nu̷m̵b̸er ͜two-͢on͢è-se̡ven̷-̡se̴v̛én͠-ńi͟n͡e͠,͠ how͢e̵v́e͠r, f͘or t͏he sa̧ke ͜of i͡nter͜p̧er̨s̸onal se̸rv̶i͟ce̴ ýo͢u ̶m̵ay̨ ͏addrȩs͜s̀ ̕m̷e͘ as ‘̀Hu̴m̷an,̡ D̵.’͜,̀ ̧or ‘̢D-̡m̕ąn'.”
  “You are a human?”
  “P̶̸̷r̷̢͠o̵v̧͞i̛͘s͡i͜͟͡o͘͝n̸̡a̢͟l͏l̷̡y͘.”
  “So, you enter my ship, freeze my friends and I, and expect me to co-operate?”
  “No̴ thr̕e̢a͏t w̸as ̕i͞mp̛li͏ed,” said the man, lowering his offered handshake. “And ͞co͟ns̸i͏de͏r͞in͢g ho̧w͢ h͏i̡ghl͢y w͢e̡ ͘h̸ave ͡d̀eem͡ed ̢you̷r in͡t̸e͜l̵l͟i͏g͢e̡n̷ce͞,͡ n͞o th͘r͝eat͜ w̧as͝ ̕i̸ǹfe͠ŗr̷ed́. We͏ have̵ ͡the mea̡ns ͡to ha̕r̨m yoù, yet ̛ỳou rema̷i͝n ̛p̶er͢f͟e͠ctl̵y įņt̶ac͝t.”
  “And that’s my point,” said the Duke. “You have deemed me an asset, if I were not an asset, would that deem me ‘disposable’?”
  “Our gǫal ͏is n͝ot͞ des͘truc̴ti͡ve. W͟e ͡ca̸tal͟ogue̸, òrg̨an̵iz͏e an͠d͞ m̸ain̕tai̸n. I m̶er̷e͜l͢y̨ se̵ek͝ t̡o̧ ͢e̵l͝iminat̛e o̧ur̨ c̢omp̨eti͘t͝or͢s͢ b͡eçause̷ ͡th͘ey ̢rep̕res̷en͡t ́a͢ ͢chao͜tìc͢ elem͜e͝n͢t whích i̸s gai̵n͝ing̷ ̕p͏ow̡e͠r͘.̷ ͟M͟y͢ dęp̀a̴r̀tm̕en̴t ͟f͞oŕese͝ȩs̷ ͢thei͞r inevita̢b̶le d͠em̨i͟şe̶,̴ ̀h͠ow̧ev̨er͘ ́y̧our i̷n̵v͟o̶lvem͘ent ̷a͟nd co-̛opeŗa̢t̡ion̵ ͠wou̷ld͘ ex͠p̡e̴d̛i̡t̀e̵ tḩis pr͞oje̕ct̡ ͟co͠ns͡idęra͟bĺy.̢”
  “I don’t like being the soldier in another man’s army.”
  “We arę a̕ll a̛ge̛n̷ts ͠of ̵a gr͡e̸ater ̛p̷ow͠er̨,͞” said the businessman. “I̕ ̧m̛er̶e̕ly off͡er ͏y͡ou th͢e op̧por͘tuńi͘t͘y ͠tó ͝c̶hoo͟se an͠ ̀all̢ianc̶e ͝w͠ith a͝ c̀o̡m̸pa͡ny̴ ̨w̢h̵os̨e ͘g̸o̢als͠ ͟coinc̵ide͏ ͡w̕it͠h ̸yǫu̷rs.”
The businessman offered his hand once more, but the Duke glanced at his two friends, still frozen in time, unaware of this entire interaction.
nbsp;nbsp;“I must decline,” said the Duke.
  “I̢f ͝you͟ w̸i͠s͟h̢,” said the businessman. “H̀o̷w̸e͜v̸e̛r͡, I̷ mu̡s̴t͠ warn yo̸u.̧ ͟W̡e͘ ̧c̨hòs̨ę th͟i̷s ḿo̶ment͡ to ͟sp̸e͘a̸ķ wi͢t̀h̡ you͏, b̢eçaus͡e̛ yo͞ur ͟next ͘d͜e̡s̷tín̨ati̢o͠n͏ ̴w̷i̧ll ̡bri̶n͏g͏ you̸ ̴fa͡c͢e ̕t̶o̵ ̷f̢a̷c̶ę,̛ ̧o͢n̕c̷e͢ ̕more, wit̷h̶ our͟ c̴om͠pe̴t͞i̴t̡o͢rs̷ . .̕ . ͠if̛ ̡you ̡al̵l̀y wit̷h them̧, we wil͡l͠ r͞e͏turn,̶ w̛ith̢ a mućh l̸e͞ss̷ fr͞iendly p̡r͜o̧p̶o͝sa̷l̷.”
  “You see, that’s the reason I had to decline,” said the Duke, frowning. “You offer me your open hand, but hide your closed fist. I don’t measure my friends by contracts, but by conduct. You certainly don’t act like a friend.”
  “W͟e do͘n’t ̨see͘k ̛fr̡ie͏nd͏s̴h͏ip,͢ ̛m̷er͏élý ͠bu͟s̡ines͢s.”

He turned and walked towards the door of the ship. The Duke turned towards the open door, and outside he did not see the vortex, but instead a bright, white light. The D-man stepped into it and was enveloped by a blinding light, then the door closed. There was a soft groaning as time began to speed up, and a loud screeching sound. The Duke looked as his friends began to slowly move, but the screeching became louder and louder.

+

  I have cleaned up this document as best I could, but there is still a great amount of corruption in both the text and the images. I don't know all that much about computers, software and viruses, so for your own safety I recommend that you don't copy any of the text, imagery or html on this page, unless you are willing to have your computer infected.
  I don't know who the D-man is, or where he came from, but what disturbs me the most is that some of the information he is referencing sounds like stuff I compiled for some of the other Lost Chapters. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but it is a truly disturbing implication if I am to believe that there is some "order" behind the chapters which are being targeted, destroyed and mutilated. Tonight, I will go through all of the documents I have, so that if this happens again I will have a greater chance of remembering which of the files have been tampered with.
  Finally, it truly unsettles me that there exists a creature which can control the Duke within the Lift; he is the master of that domain, but he was frozen stiff like a deer in the headlights. What kind of thing could possibly have that kind of power . . . ?

An Incomplete List of Incomplete Lists

Today, I was looking through my backlog on my computer, and I discovered an old document I'd forgotten about. It was a list of famous lists which have an extra item that most people don't know about. It was from two years ago, and I know because the file properties says I last wrote in the file during August 2014.
I prefer lists to be either five or ten items, otherwise it just feels lazy and incomplete; but, this list had only six. But, considering that it was about incomplete lists, it feels kind of apt that I never finished it. So, I get to add this very blog post as the first item on this list. So, I hope you enjoy:

7. The Top 6 Lists you Didn't Know were Incomplete
I only had six, and this makes up the seventh, but I am sure there are more items to this list. If you know any more, feel free to let me know. But keep in mind that the fact that this is incomplete is kinda the point.
See, you know some famous lists, you may even know them all. Like, "Snow White and the Seven dwarves"; "the Five stages of Grief"; "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". These lists are so famous, you don't even think of them as being lists, they are more akin to common knowledge or elements of the cultural zeitgeist.
But, a lot of people don't know the full truth of these lists. Some people don't realize that the fives stages of grief are not always so clear, and some people only experience three or four; some people think that the four horsemen are War, Death, Famine and Pestilence, although the only two named Horsemen are Conquest and Death, the other two wield a sword and carry scales, and their names are never stated & finally, there are only six dwarves, Dopey actually suffers from Prader-Willi Syndrome, a rare genetic disorder caused by having partial chromosomal deficiency, which results in cognitive disabilities and short stature.
Okay, I made one of those up, but the point is that we can't always trust common knowledge. Some of the things we consider to be fact may in fact be . . . apocryphal. Well, that was a forced transition. The Word of the Day is: 'APOCRYPHA'

Apocrypha /ə'pokrəfə/ pl. n. 1. (cap.) A group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible. 2. Works whose author or truth is in question. 3. Various writings, statements, etc. of uncertain origin regarded by some as canonical, but rejected by most authorities.

This all began because I was thinking about the Three Musketeers. You see, as a child, I watched a ridiculous show called "Albert the Fifth Musketeer", about musket-wielding wards that shot spaghetti, because as we all know it's more important to miseducate a child than it is to possibly upset them with the concept of artillery. But, even as a kid I'd heard of the three musketeers. Since "Albert" was the fifth, I wondered which of the other four were fake too (Yes, I did indeed understand basic mathematics). But after looking into it recently I discovered that the answer is, none of the others were fake, the original story was about how D'Artagnan joins the other three Musketeers to become the fourth. So, in writing this post, I was wondering how many other "famous groups" had unknown outliers that were just as official.
The musketeers are a poor example, because most people seem to know that there are actually four, and it's pretty official so that does not make it onto this list. I decided to look for other lists with an unknown outlier. As I have already said there may be more, but do not worry . . . I already concede that this list is certainly incomplete. So, here are what I have found . . .

6. The 12 Signs of the Zodiac
Twelve, it is such a powerful, evocative number. It's the number of o'clocks on the analogue clockface; it's the number of months in a year and it's the number of days of Christmas, so it sounds like a strong foundation. So, what would you say if I told you there were actually thirteen?
Since the first millennium in Babylon, there were declared to be twelve celestial "zones" in the firmament, so who am I to defy that? I mean, each sign of the zodiac has its own period - pick up a newspaper it will tell you the period of your zodiac - each sign represents approximately 30 days, it covers the year entirely, where would another zodiac sign even fit in? Well, I am just a man with an internet connection, but this is what I have found . . .
See, the reason we consider the twelve signs of the zodiac to be such a perfect, unshakeable foundation is because we don't understand where it comes from. The Zodiac, whilst today considered a little dalliance into divination and fun fortune-telling, was once a very serious measurement of the sky. People that stayed up all night looking at the sky realized that the arrangements of the stars does not change, so they started to record the arrangements of the most prevalent stars. By so doing this, they discovered that the world turned, not just spun around its axis with night and day, but that it span around the sun, as different parts of the sky became more or less visible as the year bore on; this was an amazing scientific breakthrough, and they used this knowledge to measure time. But, how did they tell which part of the year they were in? Well, simple, they looked in the sky to see where the sun was, and referred to their maps to see which constellation was hidden behind it. But, because of the way the world "wobbles" (which creates the seasons, but that's a whole other science) this meant that the sun followed a wavy line through the sky and that line passed over twelve of the constellations which they had mapped out, which is best illustrated in this diagram of the constellatory map. But, if you do look at that map, you will see two important things. Firstly, that the constellations are different sizes - the periods of the zodiac were decided due to pragmatism, not accuracy - astronomically the roughly divided into 12 groups of as little as 7 and as many as 45 days when the constellations occupy that tropic of the sky; and secondly, that there is indeed a thirteenth constellation which is a part of that ecliptic; it's not even like it's the smallest, Scorpio occupies the ecliptic for only 7 days, the thirteenth sign lasts over twice that at 18 days.
This sign is known as Ophiuchus, it is represented by the symbol ⛎, and the constellation itself is said to represent a man holding a snake. Now, the zodiac and horoscopes and astrology . . . that's all just silly fun, this information isn't relevant, because this is astronomy, not astrology, you don't need to change anything. However, if you think astronomy is bunkem, but still find the zodiac interesting, perhaps you would prefer the astrological signs of the zodiac, and if you were born between the 30th of November and the 17th of December, you were born under the thirteenth sign of the zodiac; and if you want to know more about the astrological zodiac, you will find this data very interesting.

5. The 5 Human Senses
What are the five senses? Sight, Smell, Taste, Touch & Sound. It's pretty simple isn't it, there are five - there's one for each finger on your hand, it's so easy to count to five. And not only that, it covers everything, right? You see, hear, feel . . . how many other senses could there possibly be?
Well . . . fourteen. BUT, that's a bit of a stretch, because it not only counts the senses we have, but also the senses we could have (like sensing magnetism, electricity, ionic change, etc.), so I'm going to be very kind, and lower that down to just six, because humans only have about six senses that we tend to ignore. That's eleven total senses you have, how fun! But, how come you've never felt them before?
Well, the answer is, you have! But, you were not used to considering these feelings with more precise words. Language is powerful, and when we lack the words to describe a sensation, it is as though it does not exist. The first thing you need to understand is that the sense of touch is incredibly complicated, and a lot of the things which people say they "feel", they would associate with a sense of touch, but that alone is not precisely accurate. Let's first re-understand what we know. We have five senses, but see, smell, hearing? These are childish terms, let's use the more accurate terminology: Ophthalmoception (sight), Audioception (hearing), Gustaoception (taste), Olfacoception (smell), and Tactioception (touch). Now, tactio comes from the same word root as tactile, it is something physically applied to your skin, touch and pressure (some would even class pressure as a separate sense, but today I will not). But, what about hot and cold?
Thermoception is our sense of temperature, and it is not just hot stuff pressed to our skin, it's internal body temperature, the temperature of the surrounding air, this is more than just something you feel. Next, pain, we "feel" pain, but pain isn't something we touch; Nociception is our measure of physiological pain, from cuts to joint pain to a stomach ache or a broken foot, it's not touch, it's a warning system of physical or internal damage. Then, there is hand-eye co-ordination, knowing where the different parts of your body are, also known as Proprioception; this kinesthetic sense still exists in blind people and people with no sense of touch, it is a sensation entirely separate again. Then, a sense of balance, this senses your orientation, making you stand upright as well as detecting momentum, and this is known as Equilibrioception, it's actually sensed within your inner ear in the vestibulum, and this used in tandem with spatial cognition is what gives people a sense of direction. Then, there is Chronoception, an understanding of now, what just happened and that something will happen later, we don't see, smell or taste time, but we do perceive it, we sense the days go by. Finally, there is a fun one called Mechanoreception, this relates to the sensation of pressure or distortion, such as twisting, vibration or mechanical stress on your body; now, in general, this deals with pressure which I generally consider to be "touch", but something else that this deals with is stretching, especially internally such as your pulse or a full stomach, but also vibration. This is not just rapid touch and release, or resting against a running tractor to make you shake, when you run your hands along a coarse surface, your fingers feel the friction as vibration. You sense the finer textures not through physical, moving points of tactile pressure, but by subconscious calculation of the vibrations you feel through the sensitivity of your skin.
So, when someone asks you what senses you have, the answer is not five, it's eleven: Sound, Sight, Touch, Taste, Smell, Heat, Pain, Orientation, Balance, Time & Vibration. Or twelve if you consider pressure to be its own sense as well. Or nineteen, if you include the animal-specific sensations of pheromones, magnetism, polarization, electricity, echolocation, moisture, gravity and depth. But, that's just splitting hairs . . .

4. The 10 Commandments
This one is kind of silly, I admit. After all, it's about religion. If you know anything about religion, you will know that it's a bit of a clusterfuck. To begin with, there are 107 versions of the Bible which are complete and that's just the ones translated into English, of those there are 52 transliterations which are accepted, documented and researched by the bibliological community.
Even within that, the ten commandments I'm talking about comprise 17 verses within [many versions of] the bible. I am using a paraphrased version of the International Standard Version, mostly because that's the one used by The Bible Reloaded. So, even when I say "these" are the ten commandments, understand that you may disagree. Because the bibliological community accepts that different biblical traditions organize these verses differently, into at least eight, to those of the Septuagint, Philo, Pentateuch, Talmud, Augustine, Catholic, Lutheran & Reformed Christian versions. But, here are the 10 commandments as I happen to understand them, which coincides with the Septuagint:

01. Have No God but Yahweh.	06. Do Not Kill
02. Worship No False Idols	07. Do Not Commit Adultery
03. Do Not Blaspheme	08. Do Not Steal
04. Keep the Sabbath Holy	09. Do Not Lie
05. Respect Your Parents	10. Do Not Envy

Now, those are 10, but as I said it is devised through seventeen verses, and in fact, some of these, such as "envy" comprise of several, it literally says "do not envy your neighbour's wife, belongings or home", which adds at least two more, then there are two which I have omitted, one saying that God is the true god, and a sort of "additional" one added by the Samaritans which says to display these commandments on Mt Gerizim.
But, oddly, these are not the ones I am talking about. In fact, I am not even talking about the 613 commandments of Jewish tradition, which detail all of the boring stuff, such as when to kill your children, how to plant seeds, how to punish rape victims, how to keep slaves and how to sacrifice animals.
So, how many commandments are there? Well, 10 . . . but not the 10 you're thinking of. The fact is, there are 20 total commandments, but the second lot of ten were made to supersede the first 10. So, what the hell am I talking about? Well, if you know your bible, Moses goes to get the commandments, but when he returns, his friends got bored and made a golden calf. In a hissy-fit, Moses smashes the two tablets with the commandments on it; so, he goes back to god, and after asking him to punish the sinners, God gives him the ten commandments again, but these ones are actually different from the first ten. They are:

11. Spurn heretics; ruin their idols.	16. Rest only on the Sabbath.
12. Interfaith Marriage is Forbidden.	17. Celebrate Shavuot & Sukkot.
13. Do Not Make "Molten Gods".	18. Sacrifice no Blood with Yeast.
14. Celebrate the Passover.	19. Offer God your best Fruit harvest.
15. Redeem Every Firstborn to God.	20. Do Not Boil a Goat in its Mum's Milk.

If you think that sounds weird, pick up a Judeo-Christian bible and read Exodus 34:12-26. I didn't make any of these up, they are commandments, and they were even written on stone tablets, as the first ten were, and it is in fact these tablets that were placed in the Ark of the Covenant, so they are pretty official. If after all of that you still think the ten commandments are a good, moral compass, look up what the word "Redeem" means in a theological context.

3. Isaac Asimov's 3 Laws of Robotics
If you've seen . . . well, basically any movie with robots in it, you will have probably encountered the three laws of robotics. I know them well enough, I'm not even going to look them up, I know them by heart.
First Law: A robot cannot harm a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Second Law: A robot must do everything commanded of it by a human being, unless such an action does not comply with the first law.
Third Law: A robot cannot destroy itself, unless its existence would otherwise not comply with the first or second laws.
It's a neat, little self-recursive, all-encompassing safety system. Now, over the years, some people have added addendums to these laws, such as the "fourth" law, a robot must tell all other human beings that it is a robot, and the "fifth" law, a robot must be aware of its own robotic nature. Or even a rule saying that self-aware robots should be free to pursue their own interests, so long as they comply with the laws.
But, these extra laws are all made up by other authors in later sci-fi books. I am talking about Isaac Asimov in particular, and the official laws of robotics, there are indeed four laws of robotics as devised by Asimov. So, you might be thinking "Well, what is the fourth law of robotics?" to which I can only answer . . . there isn't one.
Are you confused yet? Don't worry, that was my intention. See, the fourth law doesn't come after three, it comes before one. it's the Zeroth Law of robotics. Yes, there is an ordinal number for zero. Why is it zero and not four? Well, for two reasons. Firstly, because it supercedes all others. Just as two must comply with one, and three must comply with one and two; one, two and three must all comply with zero. So, what is this amazing law?
Zeroth Law: A robot cannot harm humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm.
But, the second reason this is the zeroth law is because, even though Asimov came up with it, it is not an "official" law; in the books, the robots are programmed to have the three laws, but the zeroth law is not programmed. Rather, he conceived that a sufficiently advanced robot would be so smart that it would realize the importance of its creators beyond the mere humans that bought it and boss it around. It would calculate that, through inaction, several humans die every day or become endangered, hurt, attacked, just by nature of being humans. By not acting to save the starving kids in Africa, or the wars in the middle east, it is not complying with the second law. However, he proposed, if the robots ethics were merely a calculator, it would equate an individual death as meaningless, and rather it would deduce that the continuation of further humans is the ultimate goal; it cannot stop a human from dying, but it can sustain humanity by killing detrimental and dangerous humans. That's the reason you've probably never heard about it, by justifying its actions as preventing humans from endangering themselves, robots could quite easily subjugate humanity "for the good of mankind". Do you find robots scary, yet? Asimov certainly does . . .

2. The 7 Deadly Sins, or The 7 Heavenly Virtues
These are actually two lists, but they go hand in hand, so I thought it would be wrong to split them up. After all, the two go hand in hand, and so too do the additional items on these lists. Also known as the Capital Vices and Christian Virtues, there are commonly considered to be exactly seven which go in pairs. So, they are Lust/Chastity; Gluttony/Temperance; Greed/Charity; Sloth/Diligence; Wrath/Patience; Envy/Kindness & Pride/Humility. As you see, they balance one another out. You can be lustful or chase, greedy or charitable, wrathful or patient. Unlike the 10 commandments, these morals have a tendency to actually be moral, it is, after all, better to be kind, diligent and humble. I have mixed opinions about chastity and lust, but otherwise, this is a well-rounded list. So, what could possibly be missing?
Well, if you're an orthodox christian, you would already know that there are eight vices and virtues. But, for the Christian Orthodoxy, the eighth sin is Despair, and its corresponding eighth virtue is Faith. But . . . I don't agree. For two very important reasons. Firstly, I have suffered from depression; I do not currently, but I sometimes get those black dog days, and I can't think of something more disgusting than telling someone with depression that they are a sinner for something beyond their control. But also, to me, faith isn't a virtue. Faith is stupid, and even though I have faith about some things in my life, I rightly understand that my faith is stupid and has no practical value, but it is not good; it's also not bad, it just serves to make people feel content about uncertainty. That's not a virtue, not to me. BUT, if you want, you can accept those, since after a great deal of research, I have come to realize that my idea of the next two sins/virtues don't seem to exist, officially.
See, I do believe that there are eight virtues, and eight vices . . . but, not faith and despair. Instead, there are two more. As far as I'm concerned, the Eighth Deadly Sin is: Corruption. That is to say, it is sinful to encourage, orchestrate or instigate vice in something virtuous; to me, this is the ultimate vice, and that is why it is left out of the list, because it represents every vice. And, alongside this ultimate vice is the ultimate virtue, the Eighty Heavenly Virtue is: Justice. That is to say, it is virtuous to encourage morality, balance and fairness; or, if you want to be fancy, it is just to purge imbalance and corruption, that is why the two go hand in hand.
But, I'm not actually sure where those came from, I read them several years ago and I can't remember the source, but they always struck me as worthy vices and virtues to remember; in fact, they inspired this very post. So, even if the real "eighth" items on these lists are the crappy, Christian Orthodoxy ones, I put this as number 2 on this list, for the duality of the list, and the morality of these sins and virtues, Corruption and Justice.

1. The 3 States of Matter
This one is my absolute favourite. Because it's not only interesting, but so widely unknown. That's why it gets number one on this list. Well, what are the three states of matter? Solid, Liquid, Gas.
That's kinda it. Now, I have heard some weird theories before about how there are 19 states of matter, but that's not a scientific thing; those are non-classical states of matter. These include things such as amorphous solids; liquid crystal; superfluids; Bose-Einstein condensates; degenerate matter; supersolids; superglass; equilibrium gel & dark matter. Those are interesting, but it's not exactly another state of matter. To me, it's like saying "is a sausage a meat or a vegetable?" technically it's neither, but that doesn't mean that "animal, vegetable or mineral" is wrong, because that's not what Linnaean taxonomy was defined to classify. Similarly, gels, superfluids and glass are often talking about the properties of matter, less than the classical states of matter, they're technicalities, or rare anomalies, not common states of matter.
But, what is the fourth? I mean, if you wander around your kitchen, you can take a deep breath of the air, in a gas state. You can turn on the tap, and have a drink of water in a liquid state. You can get a grain of salt, or tap on the cupboard door, both of which are solid. Where is this fourth state?
Well, it's actually a little dangerous, but if you really want to see, there are two methods. You can turn on the stove, or you could stick a fork in the microwave.
Now, until I did research on this post, I thought that fire was the fourth state, but fire is just a gas undergoing a chemical reaction, releasing heat, solids [as smoke/ash] and gas (depending on the fuel), fire itself is not another state of matter. No, the fourth state of matter is Plasma. So, how does this work?
Well, let's get some ice (a solid), if you heat ice you can melt it into water. if you heat water (a liquid), you can boil it into a steam. But then, if you get that steam and continue to heat it and heat it, it will alter the balance of electrons within the gas particles, which is called ionization giving the gas a positive or negative charge, and this ionized gas is in fact plasma. But it's not just "charged gas", electricity is not the same thing as plasma, Electricity is basically free electrons, but plasma has different properties to gas which is why it is classified differently; as I said before, you could turn on the stove to see plasma, but not all fire is plasma; certain flames may be considered plasma if they are hot enough and contain enough ionized gaseous components within the chemical reaction, the way to tell is to determine the properties of the matter. Even I don't understand it fully, so I recommend that you look it up for yourself.
The biggest and best example we have of plasma is to go outside and look at the sun. Don't stare, you might be dazed or blinded, but the heat and light that come from the sun is from a nuclear reaction which, due to the turbulent chemistry going on, means the sun is really just a ball of plasma, a constantly burning engine fueled by ionized gas. In fact, for this very reason, plasma is the most common form of matter in the universe, as all stars (as far as we know) are mostly plasma. That's why this is my favourite. It's the most popular state of matter, and most people don't even realize that it is one . . .

- - -

Anyway, this actually took a lot more research and effort than I thought it would, so I won't keep you long. If you know any more incomplete lists, feel free to let me know. Even if some of these were apocryphal, I enjoyed what I discovered in researching them, and I hope you have learned something in turn.
I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and until next time, even if you don't know any more 'incomplete lists', why don't you look them up? I'm sure there are dozens more official relics which time has let slip through its fingers, I don't know if this list ever will be completed; but, not only is it interesting trivia, you also learn more about the world at large by looking through the details of these mysteries of history.