I have weird feelings about gaming journalism. On one hand we greatly enjoy the services, both journalistic and recreational, of folks like Jim Sterling, Laura Dale, and Yahtzee Croshaw. Jim Sterling in particular is an eloquent and earnest consumer advocate whom I greatly admire. On the other hand, a great deal of time and money has been dedicated to creating a powerful, public-facing back-feed loop in the area of games media. The sheer shameless, entitled corruption in mainstream gaming journalism has been so pervasive and so resented for so many years that it periodically gets tied to some asscheese's personal beef with someone in the industry by gossamer threads and we all go on a merry hatebinge for a week or so.
The good works and great joy contributed by the bad-ass PCs mentioned previously give me something very much like hope. It could just be an erection, but I'm pretty sure hope is involved. It's hard not be jaded about it though. I've been gaming since my fingers were big enough to push the buttons, and for most of that time gamers have been losing some really important battles to corporate profits. We've seen a couple big wins over the years; the slow, steady grinds towards greater inclusion and acceptance, towards better transparency in the industry and towards gaming as a positive force in the world.
Unfortunately, we've also suffered some pretty heavy consumer defeats. The hype-machine of mainstream games journalism has contributed to the success of anti-consumer standards for years, they've been selling out and selling us out since the console wars.
So really, I guess I don't have weird feelings about games journalism. I have a deep love and appreciation for games journalists and the work they do on our behalf, and an articulated, slow-fucking hateboner for the corporate schills who've consistently collaborated with those who would do harm. So pretty much like regular journalism.
Showing posts with label Abuse of Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abuse of Power. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2016
Monday, November 16, 2015
The Further Adventures of Bre-... Oh Wait. Nope.
I'm going to take a short break from Brennan and Smythe this week on account of just, the worst sinus infection. I'm going in for scans tomorrow and today I'm just kind of sore and distracted. Between the headache and the general sense of malaise I'm not much of fit company right now. I come from a family that doesn't hold much regard for medical professionals, for several reasons, and as a result I let a seasonal sinus problem get pretty spectacularly out of control. This was years ago by the way, because Eshi doesn't believe in learning lessons.
I am a worrisome sort, so there's a good chance that I'll just need a quick procedure and it'll be done, but when you start seeing words like "meningitis" and "tumor" next to the thing you have its bound to kick up some nerves. Anyway, I'm all sick and shit. I'll write in earnest later, but for now I'm just going to bundle up and have some tea.
I am a worrisome sort, so there's a good chance that I'll just need a quick procedure and it'll be done, but when you start seeing words like "meningitis" and "tumor" next to the thing you have its bound to kick up some nerves. Anyway, I'm all sick and shit. I'll write in earnest later, but for now I'm just going to bundle up and have some tea.
Monday, October 26, 2015
The Shocking Endeavors of Brennan & Smythe
I've been having a hard time coming up with anything to write about lately, as you may have noticed. So instead of trolling news posts to pretend I'm relevant for five minutes I'd rather practice technique. With this in mind I've decided to write about the adventures of our Trails of Cthulhu group. None of the stories here will be official campaigns, so I wont spoil anything and the characters are original creations of Brian and I. Without further ado; I present the Shocking Endeavors of Brennan & Smythe.
From the Desk of Prof. Alfred Smythe, Arkham Univeristy:
I had only been to Thailand once before my good friend Patrick brought the Newberg case to my attention. Needless to say, a drunken spring holiday spent in unwholesome company did not leave me well prepared to investigate the possibility of an indigenous Cult. According to Mr. Newberg (via Patrick) a Mr. Silas Portfeld, Newberg's local liaison, had failed to make a monthly check in some four months hence. There had yet to be any word from him and, given how much of Mr. Portfeld's work apparently involved wandering the Siamese countryside, this was cause for concern.
Our client was interested in breaking into the rubber industry and had decided that exploiting the rural Siamese population was just the thing for it. Mr. Portfeld had been scouting communities and laying the groundwork for future relations. Much of this revolved around mesmerizing local rubes with meaningless jargon and convincing them to negotiate with the local authorities on his behalf. I've no love lost for such degrading interference, so I was heartened to learn that Portfeld had all but struck out. He seemed to be having some measure of success, however, with a small village on the island of Ko Surin, in the Phang Nga province. The locals seemed quite interested in establishing not just a broader dialog with Newberg's organization, but also with breaking ground for a factory. The correspondences we'd been given in regards to the case immediately made clear why we'd been contacted.
It seemed the villagers were rather preoccupied with what they called "The All-Embracing Sea", the expanse of water surrounding the island. In fact, the reports provided described a rather vibrant and bizarre religious life centered on this Sea. Portfeld had in his writings described men industriously carving great beasts of unnerving design into the living wood of trees surrounding the village. A description made all the more disturbing by the phrase "wood of a pale red color, with a thin black pitch that pooled at strange angles to the earth." I will never understand Man's willingness to overlook concerning details when there is gain to be had. For; like a sailor recently ashore, good Silas had been more concerned with bending the locals over a barrel than with what he'd end up paying.
From the Desk of Prof. Alfred Smythe, Arkham Univeristy:
I had only been to Thailand once before my good friend Patrick brought the Newberg case to my attention. Needless to say, a drunken spring holiday spent in unwholesome company did not leave me well prepared to investigate the possibility of an indigenous Cult. According to Mr. Newberg (via Patrick) a Mr. Silas Portfeld, Newberg's local liaison, had failed to make a monthly check in some four months hence. There had yet to be any word from him and, given how much of Mr. Portfeld's work apparently involved wandering the Siamese countryside, this was cause for concern.
Our client was interested in breaking into the rubber industry and had decided that exploiting the rural Siamese population was just the thing for it. Mr. Portfeld had been scouting communities and laying the groundwork for future relations. Much of this revolved around mesmerizing local rubes with meaningless jargon and convincing them to negotiate with the local authorities on his behalf. I've no love lost for such degrading interference, so I was heartened to learn that Portfeld had all but struck out. He seemed to be having some measure of success, however, with a small village on the island of Ko Surin, in the Phang Nga province. The locals seemed quite interested in establishing not just a broader dialog with Newberg's organization, but also with breaking ground for a factory. The correspondences we'd been given in regards to the case immediately made clear why we'd been contacted.
It seemed the villagers were rather preoccupied with what they called "The All-Embracing Sea", the expanse of water surrounding the island. In fact, the reports provided described a rather vibrant and bizarre religious life centered on this Sea. Portfeld had in his writings described men industriously carving great beasts of unnerving design into the living wood of trees surrounding the village. A description made all the more disturbing by the phrase "wood of a pale red color, with a thin black pitch that pooled at strange angles to the earth." I will never understand Man's willingness to overlook concerning details when there is gain to be had. For; like a sailor recently ashore, good Silas had been more concerned with bending the locals over a barrel than with what he'd end up paying.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Blame Society
Lately I've been feeling like a man divided. On one hand, as regular readers will attest to, I am all about society. Cultural, technological and scientific progress is just tits, and derives directly from the fact that we've banded together in such unreasonably large and cumbersome groups. On the other hand Civilization has always been based on, shall we say, coercive conscription and that is pretty fucking evil.
There is much to be said concerning the wonderful things a large group can accomplish, but all of those things are only possible because of the most basic action of a group. Bullying. While many groups function by accumulating like-minded people, those like-minded people then have the odious duty to enforce their common beliefs upon those in their vicinity. Now this isn't always violent, and it certainly isn't always bad, but it is always oppressive. And the larger the group gets the more power they have to enforce those beliefs and the more territory they need, and so the more people come under their authority, willing or not. Now this is fucked up enough when people are being forced from their homes, but what happens when there isn't anywhere to flee?
We've talked about this before, Brian had a very insightful post about the lack of unclaimed land and what that means, but that's only part of it. It is definitely fucked up that you can't opt out of society, but it is so much more fucked up that you can't opt out of civilization. Say I don't want to be a U.S. citizen anymore. My option is to go to another country that I find more tolerable. What about people who don't find any country tolerable, and just want to strike out on their own. First you would have to go somewhere that isn't already claimed by some group or another, which as previously discussed is a troublesome prospect at best. Then you'd have to make sure whatever magical land you landed on doesn't have any resources someone would want, because then they'd come and take it, and you'd have no claim to stop them. Now sure, this has always been true to some extent, but its a relatively recent phenomena that the people coming and forcing you off your land can do so exclusively from another fucking continent. Assuming you've managed to survive in this probably barren, distant and unlikely new home, you then have to hope you didn't leave behind any reason for someone to come looking for you, lest you draw the wrong kind of attention and someone buys your land out from under you to put up a factory or a landfill or something. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is quite clear that everyone has the right to a nationality, but gives no mention of those who would rather not involve themselves in such an endeavor as a nation. The entire document is framed entirely as a means of protecting the individual within the framework of the State.
The idea that someone wouldn't want to participate in society is alien to us, which kind of makes sense when you account for the fact that civilization has historically been highly interested in justifying itself as the best or only way to live, even and especially when opposed by another civilization. Everyone likes to think that they have a monopoly on awesome, and the more like-minded people you get together the more certain they become of that monopoly. All they have to do is convince the unenlightened, or show the reticent, or kill the barbarians. And those that feel lost or broken under the yoke of the Group, well these days they can either wither away in depression and obscurity, wondering why they always feel so oppressed, or they can slowly work themselves to death trying to numb themselves against a world with no regard for their personhood. I can't fault that we're not all "forced" to participate, but its pretty fucked up that they make us watch.
There is much to be said concerning the wonderful things a large group can accomplish, but all of those things are only possible because of the most basic action of a group. Bullying. While many groups function by accumulating like-minded people, those like-minded people then have the odious duty to enforce their common beliefs upon those in their vicinity. Now this isn't always violent, and it certainly isn't always bad, but it is always oppressive. And the larger the group gets the more power they have to enforce those beliefs and the more territory they need, and so the more people come under their authority, willing or not. Now this is fucked up enough when people are being forced from their homes, but what happens when there isn't anywhere to flee?
We've talked about this before, Brian had a very insightful post about the lack of unclaimed land and what that means, but that's only part of it. It is definitely fucked up that you can't opt out of society, but it is so much more fucked up that you can't opt out of civilization. Say I don't want to be a U.S. citizen anymore. My option is to go to another country that I find more tolerable. What about people who don't find any country tolerable, and just want to strike out on their own. First you would have to go somewhere that isn't already claimed by some group or another, which as previously discussed is a troublesome prospect at best. Then you'd have to make sure whatever magical land you landed on doesn't have any resources someone would want, because then they'd come and take it, and you'd have no claim to stop them. Now sure, this has always been true to some extent, but its a relatively recent phenomena that the people coming and forcing you off your land can do so exclusively from another fucking continent. Assuming you've managed to survive in this probably barren, distant and unlikely new home, you then have to hope you didn't leave behind any reason for someone to come looking for you, lest you draw the wrong kind of attention and someone buys your land out from under you to put up a factory or a landfill or something. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights is quite clear that everyone has the right to a nationality, but gives no mention of those who would rather not involve themselves in such an endeavor as a nation. The entire document is framed entirely as a means of protecting the individual within the framework of the State.
The idea that someone wouldn't want to participate in society is alien to us, which kind of makes sense when you account for the fact that civilization has historically been highly interested in justifying itself as the best or only way to live, even and especially when opposed by another civilization. Everyone likes to think that they have a monopoly on awesome, and the more like-minded people you get together the more certain they become of that monopoly. All they have to do is convince the unenlightened, or show the reticent, or kill the barbarians. And those that feel lost or broken under the yoke of the Group, well these days they can either wither away in depression and obscurity, wondering why they always feel so oppressed, or they can slowly work themselves to death trying to numb themselves against a world with no regard for their personhood. I can't fault that we're not all "forced" to participate, but its pretty fucked up that they make us watch.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Brand Loyalty
So, a couple of weeks ago, Eshi wrote about how geeks have been turned into only one variety of person, when really the term should have a wider range. While thinking about this I started thinking about how pigeon-holing happens all the time, and that one of the most major contributors to this is corporations.
People have a mostly unspoken need to create/adopt an identity. It has been the source of some cool thought experiments, and a lot of debate in the philosophical community (monism, dualism, materialism all deal with it). This is why so many people hop into groups that offer them an identity. Nationalism is a big one, religion is too. It allows you to say "I am X" and have it mean something.
Corporations know this and exploit the hell out of it. By telling people "real X use our product" or "A product made by X for X" it makes them feel that if they use whatever it is they are selling they will reinforce that identity. They combine this with ads that make it sound as if people who choose their product are also better at using their agency than those who don't. Apple has used this since the 80's, touting that people who don't use their product are witless conformists who will never be fulfilled or have any individual identity. Gamestop does this too with the "Power to the player" ads as well. "Shopping here gives you agency" it seems to say, and people like having power, gamers especially.
I am not saying that Identity seeking is bad. Literally everyone does it, its part of our nature. I just wish that we didn't let ourselves be exploited because of it. I feel like I should be open about the fact that I don't like large corporations in the first place. I think that they breed some terrible business/social/individual habits. That being said, its pretty clear when they are being manipulative in ads, and trying to avoid supporting poor practices is something that could benefit people. So if you see a company try to be manipulative in this way, please try to avoid them. Remember, it is your actions that determine your identity, not the shit you wear while performing said action.
People have a mostly unspoken need to create/adopt an identity. It has been the source of some cool thought experiments, and a lot of debate in the philosophical community (monism, dualism, materialism all deal with it). This is why so many people hop into groups that offer them an identity. Nationalism is a big one, religion is too. It allows you to say "I am X" and have it mean something.
Corporations know this and exploit the hell out of it. By telling people "real X use our product" or "A product made by X for X" it makes them feel that if they use whatever it is they are selling they will reinforce that identity. They combine this with ads that make it sound as if people who choose their product are also better at using their agency than those who don't. Apple has used this since the 80's, touting that people who don't use their product are witless conformists who will never be fulfilled or have any individual identity. Gamestop does this too with the "Power to the player" ads as well. "Shopping here gives you agency" it seems to say, and people like having power, gamers especially.
I am not saying that Identity seeking is bad. Literally everyone does it, its part of our nature. I just wish that we didn't let ourselves be exploited because of it. I feel like I should be open about the fact that I don't like large corporations in the first place. I think that they breed some terrible business/social/individual habits. That being said, its pretty clear when they are being manipulative in ads, and trying to avoid supporting poor practices is something that could benefit people. So if you see a company try to be manipulative in this way, please try to avoid them. Remember, it is your actions that determine your identity, not the shit you wear while performing said action.
Monday, April 13, 2015
In Which My Philosophy Digs Me a Hole
Alright, I've written about this kind of thing before but I feel like it needs to be discussed in more general terms. The more power you accumulate, in literally any measure of power, the less freedom you have. See that dot to the right there? That's a period.
Now I'm going to put away my asshole hat and explain. If you are reading this you live in a fucking society. If you live in a society you are beholden, in one way or another, to other people in the society. Be it for your food or the electricity that powers your shit or just goddamn human contact, you owe. Now its very easy to go about this as some kind of absurdly complex system of poorly metered debt, but that would be fucking stupid. The better method of interacting as a society is a perpetual effort to pay it forward, to make society as a whole a better place. The greater your personal success, and thus the more resources you've tapped in order to succeed, the more you can and should do to improve society. Not by some circuitous bullshit pseudoeconomics, personally, like you actually give a shit.
Here's where things get a little weird. For some people forgoing selfish bullshit because its shitty and idiotic isn't enough, so there's more. If you accumulate power and fail to utilize your assets to benefit society, society has a responsibility to take your fucking power away. We are individuals and that's important to remember, but we are all in this together whether we like it or not. Having someone accumulate power without making an effort to actively, directly improve the quality of life around them is exploitative to all of us.
In this country especially this has been a discussion made in bad faith. There is a great deal of talk of the inevitability of social good arising from personal freedom. Which would be great if there wasn't a predisposition towards being a cunt. Not everyone has it, but enough people have it that just assuming that successful people aren't going to be shitty is willfully self-destructive. To simultaneously massacre two goodhearted maxims, whatever gets you off, as long as you don't fuck anybody over. Power is a form of freedom and freedom must be tempered by responsibility or it is monstrous, and dealing with monsters is a terminal endeavor for at least one party.
Now I'm going to put away my asshole hat and explain. If you are reading this you live in a fucking society. If you live in a society you are beholden, in one way or another, to other people in the society. Be it for your food or the electricity that powers your shit or just goddamn human contact, you owe. Now its very easy to go about this as some kind of absurdly complex system of poorly metered debt, but that would be fucking stupid. The better method of interacting as a society is a perpetual effort to pay it forward, to make society as a whole a better place. The greater your personal success, and thus the more resources you've tapped in order to succeed, the more you can and should do to improve society. Not by some circuitous bullshit pseudoeconomics, personally, like you actually give a shit.
Here's where things get a little weird. For some people forgoing selfish bullshit because its shitty and idiotic isn't enough, so there's more. If you accumulate power and fail to utilize your assets to benefit society, society has a responsibility to take your fucking power away. We are individuals and that's important to remember, but we are all in this together whether we like it or not. Having someone accumulate power without making an effort to actively, directly improve the quality of life around them is exploitative to all of us.
In this country especially this has been a discussion made in bad faith. There is a great deal of talk of the inevitability of social good arising from personal freedom. Which would be great if there wasn't a predisposition towards being a cunt. Not everyone has it, but enough people have it that just assuming that successful people aren't going to be shitty is willfully self-destructive. To simultaneously massacre two goodhearted maxims, whatever gets you off, as long as you don't fuck anybody over. Power is a form of freedom and freedom must be tempered by responsibility or it is monstrous, and dealing with monsters is a terminal endeavor for at least one party.
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
"To Protect and Serve" Seems Pretty Clear Cut
Eshi talked about the police recently on this blog and I wanted to add something to his post's idea. There are two reasons that police brutality is so overwhelmingly common in the US and I would like to address them both.
The first one is that it is way harder for a police officer to exercise impulse control when access to a firearm is readily available. We see this with the police when they get military hardware as well. In countries where police have very limited access to firearms, for example Japan and England, police shooting of civilians is practically zero. Limiting police access to firearms by itself wouldn't do much, you would need to ban firearms in general. In the US this is a tricky position that will probably never be popularly accepted.
In response to the banning of guns most people will say, "If you ban guns only criminals will have guns." This is one of the stronger positions and one that is hard to argue against. That being said, banning access to military style equipment for police departments seems like an option most people can get behind. Do the police really NEED a tank? They are not fighting enemy combatants. For the most part they are stopping domestic disputes and pulling over drunk drivers. You don't need fully automatic weapons to do that. If there is ever an instance in which the police would need a tank, it is no longer a police problem. That's what the national guard is for, its literally their job.
This segues nicely into my second point. Both sides of this debate, police and civilians, need to stop treating each other like the fucking enemy. Our police force isn't a military organization that is fighting a war, it's a group of civilians tasked with protecting people. Our civilians aren't all gun toting ne'er do wells that need to be put down, most people are just people trying to live their lives. I do think that we could benefit from not training officers in the use of militarized tactics. When a training manual encourages officers to "steel your battlemind" it encourages them to view civilians as the enemy. We aren't. And the more violence that the police use the less likely people are to trust them, which only widens the gap between the two sides.
I don't know how else to say it. Empathy motherfuckers.
The first one is that it is way harder for a police officer to exercise impulse control when access to a firearm is readily available. We see this with the police when they get military hardware as well. In countries where police have very limited access to firearms, for example Japan and England, police shooting of civilians is practically zero. Limiting police access to firearms by itself wouldn't do much, you would need to ban firearms in general. In the US this is a tricky position that will probably never be popularly accepted.
In response to the banning of guns most people will say, "If you ban guns only criminals will have guns." This is one of the stronger positions and one that is hard to argue against. That being said, banning access to military style equipment for police departments seems like an option most people can get behind. Do the police really NEED a tank? They are not fighting enemy combatants. For the most part they are stopping domestic disputes and pulling over drunk drivers. You don't need fully automatic weapons to do that. If there is ever an instance in which the police would need a tank, it is no longer a police problem. That's what the national guard is for, its literally their job.
This segues nicely into my second point. Both sides of this debate, police and civilians, need to stop treating each other like the fucking enemy. Our police force isn't a military organization that is fighting a war, it's a group of civilians tasked with protecting people. Our civilians aren't all gun toting ne'er do wells that need to be put down, most people are just people trying to live their lives. I do think that we could benefit from not training officers in the use of militarized tactics. When a training manual encourages officers to "steel your battlemind" it encourages them to view civilians as the enemy. We aren't. And the more violence that the police use the less likely people are to trust them, which only widens the gap between the two sides.
I don't know how else to say it. Empathy motherfuckers.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Jesus Christ Not Again
So, ugh, we've talked about shitty police stuff before. I can't describe how much I want to not have to do this, but I can't help it at this point. I've been trying to hold my tongue for a while here, hoping it would get better, but my hopes are often vain and counter to the impulses of human nature. So I'm just going to say it.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
Friday, December 12, 2014
We Can Be Heroes
I am feeling kind of crappy so this will be a shortish post, but I would like to talk about hero worship. Its something that happens a lot when a person becomes famous for doing something great. We put them on a pedestal because we like what they did and after a while we tend to forget that they were people too.
Its not bad to have heroes. To aspire to do great things, and look to others for inspiration, is a great way to go about your life. The bad part is when people attempt to use heroes as a symbol. This does a couple of things that harms them/the people who follow them. First, it dehumanizes them, which not only fucks up living heroes, but also turns people who did great things into inviolate paragons. It might not change the good things they did, but its important to remember that Gandhi liked giving little girls enemas. Its important to remember that for all the spiritual significance assigned to her, Mother Teresa allowed and encouraged ailing people to slowly die in agony in dark rooms of her design. Not saying they didn't do great things, but context matters. My second point is along the lines of the first point but it is focused on the people who perceive them. Turning people into symbols makes them seem superhuman, which is harmful to people who look up to them because they make progress seem impossible. If you work for a long time and don't see much progress it can be disheartening, and looking at people who achieved something can inspire you, but it can also make you feel as if you aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile.
All the people in history that have ever done anything good have all stumbled along the way. Einstein didn't sprout forth from the womb fully formed and having created the theory of relativity. There was a long process, some of which involved fucking his cousin. Really, any time you compare your work to other people's accomplishments, it can make you feel bad, but people who are heroes are the worst in that regard, because its clearly not just your own perspective that they are good at what they did. Everyone agrees that Martin Luther King Jr. is the best, and wow, you are totally not as accomplished as him. You suck.
All I can say is, look up to people but keep in mind that neither they, nor you, are perfect. Take your time, do the work, and you will succeed at whatever you are working on.
Its not bad to have heroes. To aspire to do great things, and look to others for inspiration, is a great way to go about your life. The bad part is when people attempt to use heroes as a symbol. This does a couple of things that harms them/the people who follow them. First, it dehumanizes them, which not only fucks up living heroes, but also turns people who did great things into inviolate paragons. It might not change the good things they did, but its important to remember that Gandhi liked giving little girls enemas. Its important to remember that for all the spiritual significance assigned to her, Mother Teresa allowed and encouraged ailing people to slowly die in agony in dark rooms of her design. Not saying they didn't do great things, but context matters. My second point is along the lines of the first point but it is focused on the people who perceive them. Turning people into symbols makes them seem superhuman, which is harmful to people who look up to them because they make progress seem impossible. If you work for a long time and don't see much progress it can be disheartening, and looking at people who achieved something can inspire you, but it can also make you feel as if you aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile.
All the people in history that have ever done anything good have all stumbled along the way. Einstein didn't sprout forth from the womb fully formed and having created the theory of relativity. There was a long process, some of which involved fucking his cousin. Really, any time you compare your work to other people's accomplishments, it can make you feel bad, but people who are heroes are the worst in that regard, because its clearly not just your own perspective that they are good at what they did. Everyone agrees that Martin Luther King Jr. is the best, and wow, you are totally not as accomplished as him. You suck.
All I can say is, look up to people but keep in mind that neither they, nor you, are perfect. Take your time, do the work, and you will succeed at whatever you are working on.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Appeal to Authority
So, it has been a while since I have talked about a fallacy on here, so I wanted to talk about one that happens a little to often for comfort. Appeal to authority on its most base principal goes something like this:
A says X about subject matter Y.
A should be trusted about subject matter Y due to them holding some form of sway in the field of Y.
Therefore, X is correct.
This all falls apart in step two. Unless a person displays competence in a field and has evidence to back up their claim, believing their claim based on the fact that they are perceived as an authority alone is fallacious. This is not to say that you shouldn't accept information from a person who holds authority, it just needs to be accompanied by proof.
A big example of this in popular culture is with evolution. If you watch most news reports/debates about evolution you will see a representative from both sides of the argument given equal airtime and voice based on them both being experts in their fields, despite the evidence being mostly one sided (that is about global warming, but I think it still makes a good point). Creationists/Intelligent designers don't show a good knowledge of how things work so taking that half formed knowledge and using it as a place of authority is wrong.
Aristotelians had this problems as well. Aristotle was taken as a genius and that everything he said was the truth. The problem with this is that he was often wrong. Because he was considered an authority for so long a lot of his statements were accepted with no thought for a long time, until people decided to check on his facts. One of which was that because women have a smaller jaw than men they have less teeth. Despite this being observably false with just a little effort people accepted it for a long time.
There are a couple of off shoots of this argument that are used fairly commonly.
Dismissal of evidence
A says X about Y with Evidence Z
B, an authority, says X is false.
Therefore A is wrong.
Once again, without evidence of how X is false B's claim is fallacious. This might just be a disagreement in how the evidence was interpreted, but that doesn't discount A.
The last variation of this that I want to talk about is Argumentum ad verecundiam, which means argument from authority. This is basically a person of authority shutting down someone because they are not an authority on a subject. Without supporting evidence of why the person without authority is wrong this argument is fallacious.
Eshi had this happen to him when he was talking to a professor about the aesthetic nature of morality. Eshi claimed that at its core morality was an aesthetic subject, while the professor claimed that morality was based on absolutes. Their argument went on for a while and ended when the professor said something akin to "well I have a doctorate, so there is no way that I am wrong on this." This is clearly a shitty thing to do.
So there you have it, the appeal to authority fallacy. Its all to common, but knowing what it is takes away its power. So, unless someone has evidence to backup their claims, don't accept them offhand.
A says X about subject matter Y.
A should be trusted about subject matter Y due to them holding some form of sway in the field of Y.
Therefore, X is correct.
This all falls apart in step two. Unless a person displays competence in a field and has evidence to back up their claim, believing their claim based on the fact that they are perceived as an authority alone is fallacious. This is not to say that you shouldn't accept information from a person who holds authority, it just needs to be accompanied by proof.
A big example of this in popular culture is with evolution. If you watch most news reports/debates about evolution you will see a representative from both sides of the argument given equal airtime and voice based on them both being experts in their fields, despite the evidence being mostly one sided (that is about global warming, but I think it still makes a good point). Creationists/Intelligent designers don't show a good knowledge of how things work so taking that half formed knowledge and using it as a place of authority is wrong.
Aristotelians had this problems as well. Aristotle was taken as a genius and that everything he said was the truth. The problem with this is that he was often wrong. Because he was considered an authority for so long a lot of his statements were accepted with no thought for a long time, until people decided to check on his facts. One of which was that because women have a smaller jaw than men they have less teeth. Despite this being observably false with just a little effort people accepted it for a long time.
There are a couple of off shoots of this argument that are used fairly commonly.
Dismissal of evidence
A says X about Y with Evidence Z
B, an authority, says X is false.
Therefore A is wrong.
Once again, without evidence of how X is false B's claim is fallacious. This might just be a disagreement in how the evidence was interpreted, but that doesn't discount A.
The last variation of this that I want to talk about is Argumentum ad verecundiam, which means argument from authority. This is basically a person of authority shutting down someone because they are not an authority on a subject. Without supporting evidence of why the person without authority is wrong this argument is fallacious.
Eshi had this happen to him when he was talking to a professor about the aesthetic nature of morality. Eshi claimed that at its core morality was an aesthetic subject, while the professor claimed that morality was based on absolutes. Their argument went on for a while and ended when the professor said something akin to "well I have a doctorate, so there is no way that I am wrong on this." This is clearly a shitty thing to do.
So there you have it, the appeal to authority fallacy. Its all to common, but knowing what it is takes away its power. So, unless someone has evidence to backup their claims, don't accept them offhand.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Adventures in Househunting
So we've been in the early stages of moving lately; looking for a new place, getting rid of the things we don't need etc. This process has illuminated for me a pretty considerable failure in our society. Its a big reason we're leaving our current home and the prevailing reason we haven't lined up a new place yet. The problem is essentially one of expectation and demand. The leasing agency is running a business, I have demand for a home.
Now I understand how this comes about, one party is looking to earn a consistent profit and over time increase revenue; the other party is typically in various states of anxiety for need of a place to live. This puts nearly all the leverage in the hands of the party seeking profit. The tricksy aspect in our case is that we aren't in any rush (which would usually mean buying a home which is a different beast altogether), meaning that relatively normal behaviors and manipulative techniques, while still used, are ineffective.
About a week ago the family and I were at a walkthrough at a prospective place; nice, relatively large, pretty solid kitchen, everything we were looking for. The only real problem with the place was the fact that the kitchen was floored with unglued, shitty linoleum. I mentioned that I spend a lot of time in the kitchen and asked if that was a possible fix. It was not. That's not really a problem in itself but the fact that his reaction was essentially surprise at being called out was troubling. we were still pretty alright with the place though so we applied.
He got back to us a couple of days later more than a bit zealous to sign the lease. Which again not a problem in itself, we asked for a copy of the lease so we could take a look at it as a household and make sure everything was amenable. This is where the deal broke. At this point the landlord got huffy and started talking about all the other people who wanted the place. He said he'd email me the lease but to get back to him as soon as possible. So I waited while he sent me the lease and talked to Brian and my wife about his overall attitude, the lot of us becoming less enthusiastic by the minute. I received the lease and started poking through it only to immediately get a call from the landlord.
Did I get the lease? There are just, like, sooo many people on hold for the location, waiting with baited breath to see if we'll snatch it up. We really need to get this lease signed as soon as possible. Yes, yes, thank you. I read through the (blank) lease he's sent me and thought some more about how he'd treated us as prospective clients. I never heard the words "just sign the fucking lease" but that was very much the gist of our communication thus far. After a few about two hours later he called again once more insisting that we get the lease signed because of all the other frothy-mouthed applicants. So I told him that we weren't interested. His response was almost comic. He blustered for a second and then repeated his claims about just, so, so many applicants. Then he hung up.
I realize that's a bit long-winded and I could just be oversensitive, but why would I want to rent from someone so blatantly manipulative and pushy? Why would anyone? I don't know. It bugged me and now I'm sharing it with you. For whatever that's worth.
Now I understand how this comes about, one party is looking to earn a consistent profit and over time increase revenue; the other party is typically in various states of anxiety for need of a place to live. This puts nearly all the leverage in the hands of the party seeking profit. The tricksy aspect in our case is that we aren't in any rush (which would usually mean buying a home which is a different beast altogether), meaning that relatively normal behaviors and manipulative techniques, while still used, are ineffective.
About a week ago the family and I were at a walkthrough at a prospective place; nice, relatively large, pretty solid kitchen, everything we were looking for. The only real problem with the place was the fact that the kitchen was floored with unglued, shitty linoleum. I mentioned that I spend a lot of time in the kitchen and asked if that was a possible fix. It was not. That's not really a problem in itself but the fact that his reaction was essentially surprise at being called out was troubling. we were still pretty alright with the place though so we applied.
He got back to us a couple of days later more than a bit zealous to sign the lease. Which again not a problem in itself, we asked for a copy of the lease so we could take a look at it as a household and make sure everything was amenable. This is where the deal broke. At this point the landlord got huffy and started talking about all the other people who wanted the place. He said he'd email me the lease but to get back to him as soon as possible. So I waited while he sent me the lease and talked to Brian and my wife about his overall attitude, the lot of us becoming less enthusiastic by the minute. I received the lease and started poking through it only to immediately get a call from the landlord.
Did I get the lease? There are just, like, sooo many people on hold for the location, waiting with baited breath to see if we'll snatch it up. We really need to get this lease signed as soon as possible. Yes, yes, thank you. I read through the (blank) lease he's sent me and thought some more about how he'd treated us as prospective clients. I never heard the words "just sign the fucking lease" but that was very much the gist of our communication thus far. After a few about two hours later he called again once more insisting that we get the lease signed because of all the other frothy-mouthed applicants. So I told him that we weren't interested. His response was almost comic. He blustered for a second and then repeated his claims about just, so, so many applicants. Then he hung up.
I realize that's a bit long-winded and I could just be oversensitive, but why would I want to rent from someone so blatantly manipulative and pushy? Why would anyone? I don't know. It bugged me and now I'm sharing it with you. For whatever that's worth.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Won't Somebody Think of the Children
I hate children. I hate children for a very specific reason; their fucking parents. Now, naturally I'm making a hyperbolic statement. I am pretty sure I don't hate all children, not all parents are horrible fucking cunts intent on inflicting their idiotic, cunt children on the world. But most parents, and by extension most children, I feel are unfit for public exhibition.
I should say, I'm not a parent, I wont be a parent and I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for parents. That lack of sympathy arises from a pretty logical, if unpopular, place. It's their fault. We know what causes it, we know how to prevent it (in any number of simple, effective ways), and we have methods to remove the problem if a child pops up before people are ready to be parents. Ignorance is no excuse, beliefs are no excuse, culture is no fucking excuse. I understand that some of the options above are unpleasant or somewhat unacceptable to some folk. Those people are fucking wrong. I don't really (honestly, I swear) like to be that dogged under most circumstances, but I'm pretty justified here for one simple reason. If you aren't ready (emotionally, physically, financially, socially etc. etc. ad infinitum) for a child, you are creating a person and starting them at a deficit. Raising a kid well is hard enough without playing with a handicap.
I'm not saying that people who grow up in non-optimal situations are just unavoidably fucked. I'm not saying that if you grow up rich and well accounted for you'll be well adjusted. I am saying that its irresponsible to the point of fucking disgust to raise a child in a situation where that child is not your absolute priority. I will freely admit that I've been a bit shaded by my experiences on this topic, but this is one of those situations where if you fuck up the consequences range far and wide. A bad parenting situation won't just ruin the kid, it can fuck up everyone that cares about that kid. Its not just hard, its heartbreaking, loving someone who is a victim of neglect or emotional abuse. We make jokes about people who weren't hugged enough as kids, but people who come from homes that weren't really adjusted for them can be really and painfully fucked up.
I hate children. I hate them because our society overvalues parenthood without valuing the skills it takes to be a parent. I hate them because some people's adherence to tradition supersedes their capacity for rational thought. I hate them because people's need for vainglorious validation, their ridiculous, vicarious immortality, overwrites their ability to produce fully-functional people. I hate them because there is a reliable percentage of the population that, on some level, equates their child to a particularly clever pet. I hate what we do to children.
I should say, I'm not a parent, I wont be a parent and I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for parents. That lack of sympathy arises from a pretty logical, if unpopular, place. It's their fault. We know what causes it, we know how to prevent it (in any number of simple, effective ways), and we have methods to remove the problem if a child pops up before people are ready to be parents. Ignorance is no excuse, beliefs are no excuse, culture is no fucking excuse. I understand that some of the options above are unpleasant or somewhat unacceptable to some folk. Those people are fucking wrong. I don't really (honestly, I swear) like to be that dogged under most circumstances, but I'm pretty justified here for one simple reason. If you aren't ready (emotionally, physically, financially, socially etc. etc. ad infinitum) for a child, you are creating a person and starting them at a deficit. Raising a kid well is hard enough without playing with a handicap.
I'm not saying that people who grow up in non-optimal situations are just unavoidably fucked. I'm not saying that if you grow up rich and well accounted for you'll be well adjusted. I am saying that its irresponsible to the point of fucking disgust to raise a child in a situation where that child is not your absolute priority. I will freely admit that I've been a bit shaded by my experiences on this topic, but this is one of those situations where if you fuck up the consequences range far and wide. A bad parenting situation won't just ruin the kid, it can fuck up everyone that cares about that kid. Its not just hard, its heartbreaking, loving someone who is a victim of neglect or emotional abuse. We make jokes about people who weren't hugged enough as kids, but people who come from homes that weren't really adjusted for them can be really and painfully fucked up.
I hate children. I hate them because our society overvalues parenthood without valuing the skills it takes to be a parent. I hate them because some people's adherence to tradition supersedes their capacity for rational thought. I hate them because people's need for vainglorious validation, their ridiculous, vicarious immortality, overwrites their ability to produce fully-functional people. I hate them because there is a reliable percentage of the population that, on some level, equates their child to a particularly clever pet. I hate what we do to children.
Friday, September 5, 2014
For Great Justice
You know whats cool about being a cop? You can break the law and get away with it because, hey, you are the law! Did I say cool? Sorry, I didn't mean cool, I meant fucking stupid. Seriously, what the hell guys? I feel like I need to say this now: I don't hate cops. I think that they preform a necessary and valuable service for the people. I also know that there have been cases in which cops have broken the law and have gone to jail. But when all is said and done the fact that there has been no punishment for police who have committed crimes in any case at all, is something that I cannot abide.
The story that made me want to write about this is the policeman who killed the former COO of napster because he was texting while driving. The excuse they gave was that he was in the middle of texting a reply to another officer asking a work related question. This is bullshit. Do you know why texting while driving is illegal in the majority of states? Because shit like that happens! People die because someone didn't want to wait/pull over to send a message. The police are supposed to be paragons of justice in our country, hell, in most of the world. These are not supposed to be people in uniforms "just doing their jobs". They are the people we let guard our streets and uphold the rule of law. They are supposed to be the best of us. As Eshi has said, "We outsource our self-defense to these people at the most vital times". They are the ones that we chose to let represent our social Ideals. This means that they must be held to a higher standard of accountability then your normal everyman on the street.
A couple of the news stories I linked to earlier could have been considered accidents and not intentional crimes. That sucks and its super unfortunate for everyone involved, but you still killed a person. I know you don't want to be punished for something you didn't mean to do, but all actions have consequences and you have to live with them, especially if you are the one who is supposed to hold people accountable in the first place.
Really anytime a person has power that can impact people around them, they lose some of their freedom to act in anyway they like. When you have power over people if you fuck up, you hurt all of the people effected by you. You have to bear the responsibility of your actions. I believe that this is especially true if you are an elected official and you break the law. You don't get the minimum sentence or just paying a fine because you are important. No, you get jail time motherfucker. Did you cheat on your significant other, and then proceed to tell people who can and can't get married based on a moral code you possess? Nope, you get publicly fired. You don't get to resign gracefully. We elect people to represent us, and as such they should always act in a way that corresponds to that trust. You don't get to make mistakes. I get that your job is hard and sometimes you make mistakes, but those mistakes cost too much for you to ever get a pass.
The story that made me want to write about this is the policeman who killed the former COO of napster because he was texting while driving. The excuse they gave was that he was in the middle of texting a reply to another officer asking a work related question. This is bullshit. Do you know why texting while driving is illegal in the majority of states? Because shit like that happens! People die because someone didn't want to wait/pull over to send a message. The police are supposed to be paragons of justice in our country, hell, in most of the world. These are not supposed to be people in uniforms "just doing their jobs". They are the people we let guard our streets and uphold the rule of law. They are supposed to be the best of us. As Eshi has said, "We outsource our self-defense to these people at the most vital times". They are the ones that we chose to let represent our social Ideals. This means that they must be held to a higher standard of accountability then your normal everyman on the street.
A couple of the news stories I linked to earlier could have been considered accidents and not intentional crimes. That sucks and its super unfortunate for everyone involved, but you still killed a person. I know you don't want to be punished for something you didn't mean to do, but all actions have consequences and you have to live with them, especially if you are the one who is supposed to hold people accountable in the first place.
Really anytime a person has power that can impact people around them, they lose some of their freedom to act in anyway they like. When you have power over people if you fuck up, you hurt all of the people effected by you. You have to bear the responsibility of your actions. I believe that this is especially true if you are an elected official and you break the law. You don't get the minimum sentence or just paying a fine because you are important. No, you get jail time motherfucker. Did you cheat on your significant other, and then proceed to tell people who can and can't get married based on a moral code you possess? Nope, you get publicly fired. You don't get to resign gracefully. We elect people to represent us, and as such they should always act in a way that corresponds to that trust. You don't get to make mistakes. I get that your job is hard and sometimes you make mistakes, but those mistakes cost too much for you to ever get a pass.
Friday, August 29, 2014
High School Sucks in Basically Every Generation.
As I have gotten older I have taken to going back to movies I saw as a child and re-watching them. Mostly because after seeing "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" somewhat recently I came to a not so odd conclusion. Teenagers are kinda dicks. I know this is not shocking to anyone who went to high school, teenagers are dicks to their own almost as much as to anyone in authority, but the people in authority get the shittier end of this massive shitstick called high school.
Ed Rooney is the name of the principal in the Ferris Bueller, and is supposed to be an asshole. He wants to reign in the free spirit of Ferris Bueller. He is The Man trying to keep the cool kid down. Here is the thing though, up to a point he is just doing his job. Part of the duties of a principal is to make sure students attend school, and since Ferris Bueller is skipping school, of course Rooney is going to get after him. Now, I said "up to a point" earlier and that is because at one point he leaves campus to break into Ferris' house as a means of catching him in the act of skipping. That is fucked up, and far beyond the call of duty for pretty much anyone. The point is though, that we are supposed to hate him from the start, not just when he tries to commit a crime. Of course, the guy who played Rooney plead no contest to possession of child porn so just fuck everything about that guy. Also the hero of this movie is a sociopath. He lacks empathy for anyone he is around. My favorite example of this is the scene where he bullies someone who is supposed to be his best friend (named Cameron) into spending the day out with him, even though Cameron is sick. He also convinces him to steal a car, commit fraud on several occasions, and is consistently verbally abusive to Cameron. It is kind of scary actually, that this person has gotten to a place of significant influence in this movie.
Its fairly close to another movie from around that era "The Breakfast Club". I thought this was a good movie when I was in the intended demographic for it. Some of the themes still ring through to me now, but at the same time, one of the main antagonists is someone who is just doing their job. Richard Vernon is the assistant principal at the high school in the film who needs to watch over several kids in detention on a Saturday. As part of the detention he asks the students to write an essay explaining who they think they are. Of course the students decide to not do it because, once again, he is The Man, trying to keep them down. It is busywork, but they are supposed to be there for 8 hours, so giving them something to do, especially something that forces them to look at who they are, might be more beneficial then just having them sit silently for most of a day. They end up discovering empathy for each others problems, which is actually a pretty good lesson, and write an essay explaining that trying to force them into defining themselves is foolish, especially when the assistant principal has already made up his mind about them. But once again the person in authority is considered to be someone who is just being evil rather than a man who is called in to work on his day off to take care of students who don't respect him as a person. He does antagonize them, but he could just be frustrated by the position he himself is in. That said, this man is in a position of authority over fucking children. I don't care how bad a week you've had, by taking on an authority role you lose the option to take your issues out on other people. Its never fucking okay to tell a kid that they're a waste of skin.
I am not trying to say that people in authority are good or bad, but that trying to "other" them (in the Hegelian sense) and ignore that they are themselves people with problems and not just a monolithic embodiment of authority and oppression is fucked up. Yes people in authority can be assholes(Eshi talked about it in his last few posts), but they can also be not assholes. Just because their jobs prevent you from doing what you want to do at that time, doesn't mean that they are being a dick, maybe they just don't want to get fired. And this is especially bad when it comes to teen movies. Parents sometimes prevent their kids from going to a party, but not because they want the kid to suffer, but because they know what goes on at high school parties and don't want their kids to be drinking and making idiot teenage decisions. In teen movies the parent is the bad guy in that situation and that's pretty fucked up.
You want to know the most fucked up thing about this lack of generational empathy? Its biological! This lack of empathy goes in both directions, and is the product of how teens and adults understand body language. Its less of teenagers being dicks, and more teenagers have trouble empathizing. The only real solution to this problem comes from people actually listening to one another and dispensing of pre-decided notions of held positions. Basically talk to each other and be willing to listen to reasoning from both sides.
Ed Rooney is the name of the principal in the Ferris Bueller, and is supposed to be an asshole. He wants to reign in the free spirit of Ferris Bueller. He is The Man trying to keep the cool kid down. Here is the thing though, up to a point he is just doing his job. Part of the duties of a principal is to make sure students attend school, and since Ferris Bueller is skipping school, of course Rooney is going to get after him. Now, I said "up to a point" earlier and that is because at one point he leaves campus to break into Ferris' house as a means of catching him in the act of skipping. That is fucked up, and far beyond the call of duty for pretty much anyone. The point is though, that we are supposed to hate him from the start, not just when he tries to commit a crime. Of course, the guy who played Rooney plead no contest to possession of child porn so just fuck everything about that guy. Also the hero of this movie is a sociopath. He lacks empathy for anyone he is around. My favorite example of this is the scene where he bullies someone who is supposed to be his best friend (named Cameron) into spending the day out with him, even though Cameron is sick. He also convinces him to steal a car, commit fraud on several occasions, and is consistently verbally abusive to Cameron. It is kind of scary actually, that this person has gotten to a place of significant influence in this movie.
Its fairly close to another movie from around that era "The Breakfast Club". I thought this was a good movie when I was in the intended demographic for it. Some of the themes still ring through to me now, but at the same time, one of the main antagonists is someone who is just doing their job. Richard Vernon is the assistant principal at the high school in the film who needs to watch over several kids in detention on a Saturday. As part of the detention he asks the students to write an essay explaining who they think they are. Of course the students decide to not do it because, once again, he is The Man, trying to keep them down. It is busywork, but they are supposed to be there for 8 hours, so giving them something to do, especially something that forces them to look at who they are, might be more beneficial then just having them sit silently for most of a day. They end up discovering empathy for each others problems, which is actually a pretty good lesson, and write an essay explaining that trying to force them into defining themselves is foolish, especially when the assistant principal has already made up his mind about them. But once again the person in authority is considered to be someone who is just being evil rather than a man who is called in to work on his day off to take care of students who don't respect him as a person. He does antagonize them, but he could just be frustrated by the position he himself is in. That said, this man is in a position of authority over fucking children. I don't care how bad a week you've had, by taking on an authority role you lose the option to take your issues out on other people. Its never fucking okay to tell a kid that they're a waste of skin.
I am not trying to say that people in authority are good or bad, but that trying to "other" them (in the Hegelian sense) and ignore that they are themselves people with problems and not just a monolithic embodiment of authority and oppression is fucked up. Yes people in authority can be assholes(Eshi talked about it in his last few posts), but they can also be not assholes. Just because their jobs prevent you from doing what you want to do at that time, doesn't mean that they are being a dick, maybe they just don't want to get fired. And this is especially bad when it comes to teen movies. Parents sometimes prevent their kids from going to a party, but not because they want the kid to suffer, but because they know what goes on at high school parties and don't want their kids to be drinking and making idiot teenage decisions. In teen movies the parent is the bad guy in that situation and that's pretty fucked up.
You want to know the most fucked up thing about this lack of generational empathy? Its biological! This lack of empathy goes in both directions, and is the product of how teens and adults understand body language. Its less of teenagers being dicks, and more teenagers have trouble empathizing. The only real solution to this problem comes from people actually listening to one another and dispensing of pre-decided notions of held positions. Basically talk to each other and be willing to listen to reasoning from both sides.
Monday, August 25, 2014
The Most Charitable Thing I Can Bring Myself to Say About Police
I've been trying very fucking hard to keep my mouth shut about whats been happening in Ferguson the past couple weeks. As Michael Brown's funeral is today and I'm not a complete fucking ogre, I'm going to refuse once more to exploit the agony of his family's loss for the sake of a discussion. My heart goes out to them. I truly hope they find the justice they so clearly deserve.
However, while I have no desire to salt wounds, I have no such compunction against picking scabs. The systemic abuse of authority is something I must engage.
Authority in general is a bit of a touchy subject to me; both in that I don't have any, and in that its a philosophical minefield. I believe that the right to reasonable self defense is a primary human right. Now, people aren't always reasonable and not everyone is capable of protecting themselves. With this in mind its pretty natural to prevent people just loosing their shit all the time (both literally and figuratively) by outsourcing self defense. These days we call these defenders "police", and the entire impetus for their existence is and needs to be the reasonable defense of the civilian population against anti-social factors. Now, that means that the whole purpose of a police force ought to be peacefully deescalating dangerous situations when possible and utilizing just enough force to detain those who would do active harm to society. This does rather heavily mug my previous post on Ethics in that these actions are meant to ensure justice, i.e. the appropriate punishment of anti-social elements and the rehabilitation of those capable of recovery. Anything other than this is meant to make wronged parties feel better and that is an intrinsically moral issue, if you want to feel better that's all on you.
The unfortunate worm this this particular apple is that most police are just people doing a job. Because of the way we interact with law enforcement (note the different terminology), they are given undue, and often vindictive, protections. It is intrinsically unreasonable to make it a crime to assault an officer; being assaulted is an expected vocational hazard when dealing with the sort of people who tend to require police intervention: the actively violent and the anti-social. Besides there are already laws against assault, making a special law for people who assault cops is ridiculous. It is intrinsically punitive to have laws punishing resisting or avoiding arrest, making laws designed explicitly to add to an initial crime is just beating a dead horse. The fact that a police officer can beat a homeless man to death, or murder a young man in front of his family, or melt a baby with a flash/bang grenade or ever kill someone not actively trying to kill another person, and have any hope of still being a police officer is fucking disgusting and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Unfortunately, it is a core aspect of any kind of authority to maintain and accumulate power. Even the most well-intentioned person, given a degree of command, will seek more power under the auspices of being able to do more good. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying all police are corrupt, or that everyone in a position of power is bad. I am simply saying that being in a position of control tends to encourage one to seek more control. Authority, like a fucked up super solder cocktail, can't help but emphasize preexisting traits, and not one of us is ever really a saint.
However, while I have no desire to salt wounds, I have no such compunction against picking scabs. The systemic abuse of authority is something I must engage.
Authority in general is a bit of a touchy subject to me; both in that I don't have any, and in that its a philosophical minefield. I believe that the right to reasonable self defense is a primary human right. Now, people aren't always reasonable and not everyone is capable of protecting themselves. With this in mind its pretty natural to prevent people just loosing their shit all the time (both literally and figuratively) by outsourcing self defense. These days we call these defenders "police", and the entire impetus for their existence is and needs to be the reasonable defense of the civilian population against anti-social factors. Now, that means that the whole purpose of a police force ought to be peacefully deescalating dangerous situations when possible and utilizing just enough force to detain those who would do active harm to society. This does rather heavily mug my previous post on Ethics in that these actions are meant to ensure justice, i.e. the appropriate punishment of anti-social elements and the rehabilitation of those capable of recovery. Anything other than this is meant to make wronged parties feel better and that is an intrinsically moral issue, if you want to feel better that's all on you.
The unfortunate worm this this particular apple is that most police are just people doing a job. Because of the way we interact with law enforcement (note the different terminology), they are given undue, and often vindictive, protections. It is intrinsically unreasonable to make it a crime to assault an officer; being assaulted is an expected vocational hazard when dealing with the sort of people who tend to require police intervention: the actively violent and the anti-social. Besides there are already laws against assault, making a special law for people who assault cops is ridiculous. It is intrinsically punitive to have laws punishing resisting or avoiding arrest, making laws designed explicitly to add to an initial crime is just beating a dead horse. The fact that a police officer can beat a homeless man to death, or murder a young man in front of his family, or melt a baby with a flash/bang grenade or ever kill someone not actively trying to kill another person, and have any hope of still being a police officer is fucking disgusting and a gross miscarriage of justice.
Unfortunately, it is a core aspect of any kind of authority to maintain and accumulate power. Even the most well-intentioned person, given a degree of command, will seek more power under the auspices of being able to do more good. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying all police are corrupt, or that everyone in a position of power is bad. I am simply saying that being in a position of control tends to encourage one to seek more control. Authority, like a fucked up super solder cocktail, can't help but emphasize preexisting traits, and not one of us is ever really a saint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)