Yearly Archives: 2026

The apocalyptic mindset   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged liberty psychology religion on by

It’s hard for me to understand the popularity of authoritarian movements. Why would people willingly cede power to someone whose overriding goal is power? Yet it’s happened over and over. Lately I’ve been looking at comments on the Internet and seeing a strong pattern. They see the world as facing an apocalyptic battle between two utterly opposed forces. Their side is good, and anyone who opposes it must be evil. Not only that, their opponents are all on the same side. It’s hard to think of immigrants, Constitutional lawyers, liberals (in all the senses of the word), Muslims, socialists, and the Pope all as a unified front, but to orthodox MAGAs they are.

Evangelical Christianity, which is the heart of Trump’s support, loves the idea that history is a struggle between Satanic and divine forces, and they expect it to culminate in a world war which God, of course, will win. It colors people’s worldview even when they aren’t thinking of supernatural forces. It’s their habit to think of political conflicts as fights between two fully consistent and completely opposed forces. It’s a view that doesn’t leave much room for good people who disagree, honestly mistaken ideas, and people who aren’t wholly on one side or the other.

When you accept this view, it’s reasonable to think anyone on your side is completely trustworthy, anyone opposed is a thorough liar, and anything which supports your side must be right. Anything your side does is good, including threatening to destroy a civilization. It helps if the civilization to be destroyed is aligned with a non-Christian religion.

In praying to God from the Pentagon, “Secretary of War” Hegseth raged: “Let every round find its mark against the enemies of righteousness and our great nation. Give them wisdom in every decision, endurance for the trial ahead, unbreakable unity, and overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy.”

Jackson Lahmeyer, a Trump-aligned candidate from Oklahoma who is also an Evangelical pastor, proclaimed, “Good and evil, that’s the story of the Bible. The good news is that at the end good always wins.” Look at chapter 16 of Revelation, if you have the stomach for it. Angels spread skin disease, pollute the seas and fresh water, cause deadly heat waves, and dry up a major river. They’re allegedly working for God, so this makes them “good.”

The Crusades were run on the same mindset. Armies set out to take Jerusalem and the surrounding area because “God wills it!” When the Crusaders took the city in 1099, they massacred thousands of people, mostly Muslims and Jews. They considered their own side “good” not because of their character or deeds, but because they claimed to be on God’s side. They could cite Biblical precedents, such as the genocide of the Canaanites.

Communicating with people who look at the world that way is hard. By the very fact of disagreeing with them, you’re on the side of “evil.” The important thing is to reject their worldview vocally and persistently.

The LACon code of conduct   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged conventions fandom worldcon on by

One more in my sporadic series of posts on the codes of conduct of various conventions. This time it’s LACon V, the 2026 Worldcon in Los Angeles. Its code isn’t so bad that it would have kept me from attending if I’d really wanted to, but it has enough problems that I changed my mind about getting a “virtual membership.” Here’s a look at some of its good and bad points.

First concern: “Discrimination (based on but not limited to, gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, or physical/mental disability) will not be tolerated.” Discrimination on these grounds by businesses, support organizations, and other public-facing groups is a bad thing, except when it’s necessary to their function (for example, Catholic churches can discriminate in favor of Catholics when hiring priests). Individuals can’t be held to the same standard. People often prefer the company of their own kind, and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as they aren’t obnoxious. Heterosexuals mostly would rather date heterosexuals, and homosexuals usually prefer other homosexuals. Affinity groups often meet at cons. This kind of rule can only be applied sporadically. Hopefully it will be invoked only when people get nasty about their preferences, but it could be used on anyone.

“Harassment of any kind will not be tolerated. If someone tells you no or asks you to leave them alone, you are expected to cease your interaction with them immediately. Because people may feel uncomfortable saying no or asking you to leave them alone, the absence of no is not sufficient to assume consent. Only yes means yes.” This mixes two different points. First we’re told that we should leave people alone if they say no. That’s reasonable, but then it immediately says that the absence of “no” isn’t sufficient. Does that mean explicit consent is required for every interaction? It creates pressure to formalize everything. Do people have to keep to themselves completely to be safe? Again, there won’t and can’t be complete enforcement, but the rule could be used on anyone.

It gets worse with the specific items that are called harassment. “Deliberate misgendering / deadnaming of people or continued misgendering / deadnaming after being corrected.” This applies a one-size-fits-all rule to trans people. Some people consider their previously manifested sex to be “dead” and want no reference made to it. Their choice should be respected. Others treat their transition differently. I know a fannish musician who treats his previous female identity as another person and has made an album combining her recordings with his new ones; he’s “deadnamed” himself. Some others wrote songs which they like to have credited under their previous names. Their choices should be respected.

“Comments that belittle or demean others” are deemed harassment. This is the same rule Balticon used in a nasty way. It will be quite an interesting convention if you can’t say anything bad about Donald Trump.

“Attempts to weaponize this Code of Conduct” violate the code of conduct. What counts as “weaponizing”? Does it mean anything more than using it in a way someone doesn’t like?

“Advocating for or encouraging any of the above behaviors.” I guess I’ve engaged in “harassment” by writing this.

The “anti-racism statement” is a mixed bag, but it doesn’t have specific prohibitions on members, so it’s out of scope for this discussion.

Will the bad parts of this code cause trouble for innocent people at LACon? No one knows. Sometimes senseless provisions get thrown in as boilerplate and never get fixed. It’s possible that if I registered for online participation and a WSFS membership, someone might point to this article and claim it’s “demeaning,” “harassment,” or “advocating for [prohibited] behaviors.” It’s more common, though, for cons to have badly written codes of conduct than to use them to punish people arbitrarily. Even so, their presence can be intimidating. A few bigoted organizations have taken action against Israelis and their supporters, so the risk is there.

Bottom line: If I were going, I wouldn’t skip the con because of this code of conduct, but I consider it enough of a negative that I’m foregoing the virtual membership.

Three silent shorts, April 7

This entry was posted in Movies and tagged music silent movies on by

My next silent film show at the Plaistow Library will be on Tuesday, April 7. This time I’ll accompany three short comedies:

  • The Immigrant with Charlie Chaplin
  • Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde with Stan Laurel
  • His Royal Slyness with Harold Lloyd

Chaplin, Laurel, and Lloyd were major comedy stars in their time. I shouldn’t have to say much about Chaplin. Stan Laurel’s career peaked after he joined with Oliver Hardy, but before that he had some excellent films on his own. Harold Lloyd’s “glasses” persona was a middle-class character, best known for his image hanging from a clock tower in Safety Last.

The Immigrant isn’t very controversial, in spite of its title. It has two distinct parts. The first shows Chaplin coming to America on a crowded boat from an unspecified country and helping a young woman whose money has been stolen. In the second part, he goes into the restaurant with a silver dollar he has found and encounters the young lady again. He discovers that the coin has fallen through a hole in his pocket and he has nothing to pay with. All turns out well, though.

I love mad scientists, Dr. Pyckle and Mr. Pryde is a great parody of John Barrymore’s 1920 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In this version, the doctor turns into not a murderous fiend but a silly prankster. The ending is lost, and what we have ends on a cliffhanger as a crowd breaks into the lab to save Pyckle’s assistant from Pryde. I’ll handle it by continuing to play, accompanying the way I think the film would have ended.

Finally, His Royal Slyness has a book salesman, played by Harold Lloyd, impersonate a prince and compete for a princess’s hand. The salesman looks just like the real prince, and you see them together on screen. No trick photography was used. Harold’s brother Gaylord looked a lot like him, and with glasses and makeup, they were nearly impossible to tell apart. Gaylord plays the real prince, who changes his mind about the deal and tries to claim the princess.

It’s a change of pace for me. The three movies together don’t run much over an hour, but they provide some of the best laughs of the period. They’re still fun today, and I aim to make them more fun with my accompaniment. Each one his its own keyboard setup, with a couple of surprises programmed in. If you’re in the area and it sounds interesting, drop by the Plaistow Library on April 7 at 6:00 PM.

This summer, the library will have some special events for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. On of them will be D. W. Griffith’s America, an epic presentation of the American Revolution. The date hasn’t been set yet.

A note on comment notifications

This entry was posted in Administrative and tagged Internet WordPress on by

When a comment gets posted to my blog, the server sends me an email to let me know. In most cases it lands in my spam folder, and with good reason. WordPress is doing something dumb.

The email is using the “From” address which the commenter provided. With modern SPF, DMARC, and DKIM protocols, which are almost mandatory today, the owner of an email account indicates which servers are authorized to use its address. The receiving IMAP or POP server will check if it came from an authorized IP address. If it didn’t, the server may mark it as spam or block it completely. Failure to do authentication properly is one of the biggest reasons legitimate mail gets flagged.

People posting comments on my blog aren’t going to authorize my WordPress server to send email for them. When my personal email server gets a message with a “From” address that belongs to the commenter but a received-mail path that comes from the website server, it looks exactly like impersonation. Technically, it is.

I don’t know why WordPress does it this way. It could use a “From” address on garymcgath.com for comment notifications, and the mail would almost certainly get through.

This means I usually don’t see comment notifications, so it may take longer for me to reply. Sorry.

The anti-thinkers

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged psychology SanityProject on by

In the long view of world history, there has been gradual progress toward more well-being and freedom. It’s hard to see it right now, since the past couple of decades have seen a decline, but the long-term trend remains. In many countries you can usually travel freely, criticize the government, and follow the religion of your choice. Four hundred years ago you wouldn’t have seen much of that anywhere.

What has made it possible is people who think. They’ve shown that people who are free to make choices are better off than people under the heel of authority. Often they’ve been inconsistent, but they’ve pointed the world in the right direction.

Most people find thinking uncomfortable, though. It carries the risk of discovering one’s beliefs are wrong. It means uncertainty about what to do. Most people would rather have a set of beliefs which they don’t need to question. They’ll think only within safe bounds, on matters that don’t challenge their worldview. In most cases this just means laziness, but some actively reject reason. They don’t aim to understand reality, but to shape it by making assertions. They’re anti-thinkers.

“Mr. Shouter” in my earlier post is a perfect example of the anti-thinker. Anyone who disagrees with him is a “liar” and “Communist.” He thinks his conclusions are valid because he proclaims them loudly, and disagreement with him is proof of evil.

What can you do with such people? Trying to persuade them just wastes your time and raises your blood pressure. Still, it’s important to discourage them and limit their influence, especially if there’s an audience. Don’t lose your temper or resort to cursing or violence. Keep the high ground. You can say “You don’t know what you’re talking about” or “I’ll come back when you have some reasons to offer.” If you’re dealing with really nasty stuff, such as advocacy of violence, you can say, “That’s not only wrong, it’s disgusting.” Then walk away from the discussion.

Don’t assume anyone who disagrees is an anti-thinker, though. People can be confused and honestly have the facts wrong, and sometimes what sounds weird turns out to be right. Some people are intellectually lazy but not aggressively irrational. But when you encounter refusal to present a coherent case, appeal to emotions alone, accusations against you, and the appeal to authority, you’re facing an anti-thinker. Unless it’s to demolish their case for an audience, such people aren’t worth your time and don’t deserve your attention.

Turning your back deprives them of the respect they think they’re entitled to. It encourages others to think more clearly. To whatever level you make a difference, you’re pushing the general discourse in a better direction.

Of course, reflect on what you’re saying, and don’t dismiss people too quickly. You can be wrong, too. Sometimes you’ll need to improve your arguments or change your conclusions.