The discussions are becoming a bit more rhetorical in that the exchanges aren't, or don't persist
as focussed, simple explorations of a single issue, and instead are blanket statement thrusts
and appeals to authority. I was rubbed the wrong way when my lack of a partnership was brought up;
while I understand what he may have meant, and he did preface the observation that I shouldn't
interpret it as an insult, for him to use that as a discredit or summary of my perspective is cheap.
This person has never had a qualifiably real interpersonal romantic relationship. We are similar in
our interests, quirks, though different in experiences and conditions - I do feel that with the
experiences he's had, those I've observed and that have influenced the way I approach issues out of
a feeling of injustice concerning the way he was treated, that he'd perhaps share or entertain
concepts defensive of him. Perhaps the issue boils down to a failure to correlate himself to the
masculine archetype; David is a man. For the majority of our middle/high school years, he was more
in tune with the exported macho-lite energy - he was into wrestling, telegraphed controversial
ideas in a provocation-seeking manner (as should all young dudes) and generally was more representative
of his identity in those days. Now, when we debate things, its as if he's ashamed of or detached
from his status as a young white male. His environment doesn't accept the perspectives I'm immersed
in, ones I resonate with and recognize as factual; the idea that men are experiencing a coopted
assault from the now female-dominated media on essentially all fronts. This self-ironcast truth isn't
reciprocated by him, which would explain why our exchanges feel as if they rest on uneven ground.
He defaults to the allusion to his 'truth' that white-defensive narratives are 'worse' than those
from the black-defensive; same goes for the male and female defensives. The constant redirections
from concessions to the validity of my points to the signal of unswayedness from the originally-
held idea - while he should believe what he wishes to, it is annoying that he demonizes himself
indirectly, me only slightly more resolutely through this dense clay-like consolidation of equity
and compensative justifications for a disruption of equalness.

As of late I have been acquiring telephone/fax equipment with the goal of furnishing my apartment
with office grade functionality, only in a non commercially-oriented way. The objective is to
establish a closed circuit telephone and fax system between rooms as some sort of hobbyistic
goal, but there is a mounting desire to utilize these systems in a more intimate manner. Having been
intrigued and largely dissatisfied by controllers designed specifically for music which I've tried,
mainly for the in-practice unintuitiveness of real-time and function constrained signal transmission,
I've been on the subconscious hunt for a medium of control which is more capable, less accident-
prone, and requiring more activation energy to achieve operations (example: activation energy of
taking a modified central MIDI controller and navigating to a region of the piano roll assigned to
turning off the lights ; while it requires deliberation, I feel it to be accident prone. Utilizing
a callup system with a number pad and submittal gesture is no doubt higher activation energy while
simultaneously being more comfortable in the sense a code can be memorized whereas a note region on
a one-dimensional keybed can't (as easily).). The 'interface' is something I feel has vanished from
the hardware sphere and utilizing begotten phone tech makes a good deal of sense to me, as many
of the concepts are reciprocal.

The differences in approach to things far beyond politically natured between myself and some of my
comrades can be quite telling. What these differences reveal are the unappreciations of nuance in
the formulations of views; I'd consider Trey and David close opposites, in that they're somewhat
dogmatic representatives of the conservative and the liberal respectively, though the latter would
probably find some objection to that classification sans the 'dogmatic' part. Some people despise
being identified, which generally explains the crisis in identity we continue to experience in the
western world with sexual politics. On the first hand you have someone raised to a callous,
strength-rewarding model, with seepages of black culture married to hick southern values - a recipe
for a cowboy-complexed man with values not strictly adherent to any one denomination, rather a
thick hypermasculine mesh; the second is someone raised in a way which imbues shame versus pride.
Growing up with a sense of embarassment is something I theorize David did, with his mother and
father's relationship forming cracks and collective routine breaking down into daily marijuana
consumption. David craves community external to his homelife and donates himself to friend groups,
several during the Benbrook years, the Torie-nucleused one, the Brewer one(s) and so on. And as
time progressed and these circles took political stances, policing the views of its members, he
felt it necessary to conform and renounce his former "misdeeds" of being a normal male adolescent.
If I were to press him for aspects of his character he now feels shameful, he would point to the
brand of jokes he used to make, which were of the racier type - internet culture during the earlier
to mid 2010s was ubiquitously offcolor, and squarish outlets like BuzzFeed and CollegeHumor, while
'popular', were more or less a portrait of impotence. So the state that we awake to in 2024 is
curious - how did figures like iDubbz evolve out of skins they once wore confidently? The answer is
a disheartening one; these content creators were young and by happenchance accrued large followings
and the platform associated with that. They may continue with their brand for a spell of time,
growing discontent with its limitations or altogether disaligned with the underlying sentiments - it
isn't uncommon for enthusiasm for a character to be lost upon analyzing the audience of such
performances. These influential figures change their tune and some experience revolutionary growth
through this - Joji comes to mind despite his irrelevance as of late. David and I's demographic
aren't products entirely of the wild west of YouTube content - while we remember positively some
early eras and were shaped/influenced by them, the incumbent feeling is what we existed in and
and identified with, were repulsed by, or both as we developed ourselves. In my case, I may have
initially played ball with the conformist suggestion, but as this proved itself to be counterproductive
and legitimately dangerous I renounced the way of thinking and, to my detriment, began injecting
untailored opinions into the discourse these automatons initiated. It was disillusioning, confusing,
painful when I was dealt the consequences of defying these social codes - I lost friends in many
different areas and soon after my girlfriend; I don't have much doubt that these were as a direct
result of this breaking away from the popular way of thinking. Perhaps naively I thought that
maintaining a respectful ethic during these discussions would spare me from nasty treatment, but
it was completely helpless - my character was assassinated in more ways than one; my conscience
wasn't isolated in their crosshairs. They went on to inundate my girlfriend with guilt trips until
she caved and was absorbed into their ideology once more, and I don't fault her for it. Social
consequences are governless for a reason and I've never wished otherwise, regardless of how unjust
it may have been. The experience taught me what can be subtracted, what is at stake in confrontations.
It taught me the importance of silence, even if I forsake it constantly - with David, I've endured
enough dissolutions and reconstitutions to know that he accepts me; with others I know its an
entirely different ballgame.

Accidents are things we as critically thinking beings are expected to learn from. The mismanagement
of attention or consideration can manifest in tripping while walking, hurting someone's feelings,
embarrassing yourself, endangering people's lives, and spelling a word incorrectly in an email;
the spectrum is about as wide as spectrums run. It is my belief that the potential for accidents to
occur is a balance that should be weighed - as someone who seeks to administer a kernel of productivity,
deviating from conventions the greater world has adopted over the years ideologically and operationally,
I feel responsible for inspecting the dangers of my actions and deciding to persist their potentials
for unfolding, or eliminating them. For example, in the foreseeable future, I wish to engineer a
patching system for mains power supply; I wish to ensure that there is no possibility for shorting,
as the consequence would be deadly and destructive. The way to ensure this is to render it impossible
to institute a connection which would cause a short, by gendering patch cables and receptacles,
thoughtfully choosing which gender is assigned to sources and destinations. If power sources were
made exclusively male and destinations female, there would still be great potential for disaster,
as AC male connections consist of
recessed but still quite touchable prongs that if, in this scenario, were to be touched, would
send mains voltage through my body. The decision to key these as female would no doubt be a life
saving one. Keying them all (sources and destinations) for female would be a quite reckless decision
as well, as while
aesthetically the array would appear clean, a male-to-male patch cable established from power source
to power source would create a - short. Therefore the exclusively male-keyed destinations and female
sources, which echoes what we observe in the real world, is the way. Inversely, in the domain of
harmless electronic connections such as line level audio, or component/BNC video, I feel it
unnecessary to take preventative action against user error at the action stage. Sure, aid the
operator with diagrams and color coding to help them consistently bypass problems/unintended results,
but to prevent them from being able to make a connection that doesn't carry any real risks would
be wrong. Serendipity is a real phenomenon in the world of studio electronics, and its parameters
are growing narrower by the day as software suites and virtualized production environments overstep
in their arrogant optimizations. I celebrate the happy accident - the materialization of something
outside of the plan which lends itself to a work's attributes.

Respecting the budding fax, modem and phone interest, I'm hatching concepts which are addons to the
pre-existing idea of changing patches and the like with commands. I suppose the both systems are
worth investing in as they both seek to accomplish the same thing; external control of the signal
routings. A hybrid of the approaches seems the ultimate incarnation of this plan, seeing both
commands and fax/phone sends as mediums of instruction. The prerequisites of the greater objective
are interfaceable patchbays; these conceptually are the backbone of everything; giant BNC matrixers