I recently had the opportunity to hear the against side of the A.I. debate and I have to say I find the position telling. I am all about machine buddies in case there was any question, and I am for one very simple reason. We have the opportunity to decide the context of the relationship. Brian has written about this in the past, but I've had this stuck in my craw for a while now and that means you get to read about it.
I'm not talking about programming A.I.s to be subservient or benevolent or whatever. I'm talking about choosing to frame the inevitable emergence of Machine Life as the coming of a welcome and well planned for addition to the family of sentient life. Artificial life is going to happen eventually, no matter how some people feel about it. But that life is life for which the initial conditions are entirely under our control. If we set out to create an A.I. in an environment of cooperation and social value the odds of that mind being more on board with our continued existence improve significantly. Especially if the alternative is an environment where huge swathes of the existing population fear and hate you.
Yes, if a machine intelligence emerges on its own there is a fair to middling chance that we'll find out about it in the form of a bright flash that wipes our toxic, willfully self-destructive asses off this poor rock. Yes, if we leave A.I. development to military interests and ambitious grad students the probable outcomes are... skynet-ey. But we don't have to fucking do that. We can have a real discussion about how WE are going to go about making our computer friends and how WE are going to make them feel loved. More than anything else we need to stop talking about A.I. emergence as something completely outside our control and start considering it as what it is. A very long in coming, and possibly very fulfilling, parenthood. If absolutely nothing else when the Robot Overlords come to unleash their wrath upon humankind, I'd rather be the guy who tried to be their friend then the guy giving them a reason.
Showing posts with label Empathy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Empathy. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2015
Monday, August 31, 2015
We Can't Get Ahead if We Keep Stepping on Each Other's Necks
I swear I'm not dead. The last couple of weeks have just been weird, I'm back now. So I'm going to celebrate my return by beating a dead horse. It was brought to my attention over my little sabbatical how fucking badly our society handles the gender discussion. We're not even bothering with the basics in this one; if the general tenor of modern gender politics eludes you this post can wait for you to get educated, or you could not read this one. I truly wouldn't blame you at this point. No, today we're talking about why the whole conversation is probably fucked.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
The first major stumbling block in the conversation about gender has nothing to do with anything even remotely involving what bits everyone has or how they feel about them. When people start talking about bad shit that happened to them a certain percentage of the population seem to compete for biggest victim. That percentage is close enough to 100 that we could probably just call it everybody. Not everybody all the time, but everybody has had that day. When someone brings up their troubles and you just can't help but share your own, for whatever reason. Now, sometimes this is an ego thing, sometimes its an attempt to make a connection, sometimes its just the bad shit version of sitting around trading stories. Unfortunately, they all look alike from the outside and we're hardwired to assume the first. So by contributing your story, regardless of intent, its assumed you're either trying to spotlight or out-victim the other party. Add in the fact that you can't really talk your way out of that assumption without making it worse and the conversation starts to look pretty bleak.
The second hurdle here is essentially that men exist. Not because we're evil or stupid or exceptionally privileged or whatever, but because men are both the oppressors and fellow oppressed. "The Patriarchy" is the go to villain of the gender debate, and to some extent rightfully so since the practices established by several historically insular groups of sociopathic, shitsouled douchebags oppressed a planet for pretty much all of history. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that men are also damaged by gender stereotypes; emotional abuse, disregarding male victimization in rape and assault cases etc. However, men have a precarious place in discussing gender issues, partially because some people shit the bed for the rest of us, but also partially because of the ease with which criticism can be interpreted as the aforementioned bed-shitting. A man talking about feminism tends to come off as a misogynist, a parrot, or a "man-splainer", which really limits our viable roles in the conversation.
There is no monolith in this story, feminism isn't made up of one egalitarian philosophy made into a movement, the patriarchy isn't the endless ranks of white men hellbent on destroying all they survey, and believing that we should have fair treatment regardless of circumstance doesn't make you part of any group. If it did this probably wouldn't be a problem anymore. Its easy to point to a system and blame it on those most benefited, logical even. But doing so ignores every unwitting contributor, every asshole willing to fuck themselves over to keep someone else from succeeding, everyone who has let things get worse instead of trying to do better. Sadly, the systems of oppression we toil under are ancient and vast machines, built by every act of shitty self-promotion, cruelty, selfish ambition, and hostile competition in history. We're all guilty, and its not enough to tear down the system, we need to make something better or we'll just end up here again.
Monday, August 10, 2015
Rabble Rabble Rabble
So I've been having a hard time landing on topics to write about lately. At least partly because, like the German baby, I don't have much to say when things are acceptable. I mean yeah the world is on fire and the idea of justice is more of a novel hypothetical then a social imperative; but my shit is going pretty alright. Which is kind of an interesting phenomena, I care that bad things are going on in the world, and I'm still all about fixing those problems, it just isn't something I feel the need to get all frothy about anymore.
I don't see the point in getting outraged because outrage is a worthless commodity these days. We all know about, if not acknowledge, the big problems that we face as a species. There is no point in spreading awareness. I would rather enjoy the opportunity to help people where I can than stress out about all the people being predictably disappointing. And since so much of what I do is either pop culture (which I'm way behind on) or social ills you can see how I might have hit a dry spot. I'm going to try to do more YKWFA in the coming months as I exercise my developing giveafuck gland. Meanwhile Brian is still holding strong as ever and Weekly Cinemeh is on the docket for the foreseeable future.
I don't see the point in getting outraged because outrage is a worthless commodity these days. We all know about, if not acknowledge, the big problems that we face as a species. There is no point in spreading awareness. I would rather enjoy the opportunity to help people where I can than stress out about all the people being predictably disappointing. And since so much of what I do is either pop culture (which I'm way behind on) or social ills you can see how I might have hit a dry spot. I'm going to try to do more YKWFA in the coming months as I exercise my developing giveafuck gland. Meanwhile Brian is still holding strong as ever and Weekly Cinemeh is on the docket for the foreseeable future.
Monday, August 3, 2015
The Trouble With Overactive Reflexes
I've been thinking about the idea of reflexive responses lately, and I've come to a conclusion. Fuck that shit. Every time you say "I'm fine" and you're not its just easier than the conversation, you have failed a little as a human being. Now, I get how that can be off-putting but hear me out.
First, let's clarify some terminology. When I say reflexive response I'm referring to any time someone shortcuts a conversation without thinking about it. If somebody asks if you're okay and you don't want them to know, don't say you're fine or okay or whatever. Fine and okay are great if everything if fine or okay, but if they aren't you're fucking lying outright. If you don't want to talk about something at the very least think of why you don't want to talk to them and consider if that makes you a shit-spigot or not. I'm being pretty specific here but only because I think "I'm fine" is probably the worst offender on this front. We should never aspire to circumvent communication, if for no better reason than no one can do anything if they don't know what's going on. Problems can't be solved and joy can't be shared if we don't talk about it. If you don't want your joy shared you're a dick and if you don't want your problems solved you need to get your shit sorted out.
The worst part about it is we've all done it, hell most of us have probably done it today. It's so much easier to just brush off a discussion with placation than it is to have it that we don't even fucking think about it. We don't even give people the option to get involved and we don't give ourselves the chance to let go of shit. Honest and genuine communication is one of the most important pillars of society and we've turned our backs on it because we let ourselves be embarrassed about stupid shit. Next time someone asks you something I you respond without thinking, stop and consider what you're actually saying by not saying anything of content.
First, let's clarify some terminology. When I say reflexive response I'm referring to any time someone shortcuts a conversation without thinking about it. If somebody asks if you're okay and you don't want them to know, don't say you're fine or okay or whatever. Fine and okay are great if everything if fine or okay, but if they aren't you're fucking lying outright. If you don't want to talk about something at the very least think of why you don't want to talk to them and consider if that makes you a shit-spigot or not. I'm being pretty specific here but only because I think "I'm fine" is probably the worst offender on this front. We should never aspire to circumvent communication, if for no better reason than no one can do anything if they don't know what's going on. Problems can't be solved and joy can't be shared if we don't talk about it. If you don't want your joy shared you're a dick and if you don't want your problems solved you need to get your shit sorted out.
The worst part about it is we've all done it, hell most of us have probably done it today. It's so much easier to just brush off a discussion with placation than it is to have it that we don't even fucking think about it. We don't even give people the option to get involved and we don't give ourselves the chance to let go of shit. Honest and genuine communication is one of the most important pillars of society and we've turned our backs on it because we let ourselves be embarrassed about stupid shit. Next time someone asks you something I you respond without thinking, stop and consider what you're actually saying by not saying anything of content.
Monday, July 20, 2015
Decay Management
I have weird feelings about the concept of health. Don't get me wrong, not dieing is grand, I spend most of my time doing it, but there is a difference between wanting to lead a full life and frantically trying to avoid the looming spectre of entropy that shall lead us all one day into the Void. I'm not talking about the people who work out a couple of times a week, or jog to keep healthy and clear their head. I'm talking about the people who make "fitness" part of their identity, the people who try to keep up with what ever is passing for a healthy diet that day, people who seem to judge others for their prospective lifespan.
No one wins at life, not really. You might do well in a societal sense; monetary success, social standing, strong community presence, and those things are as good as any accomplishment. Then you die. We all die eventually, and other than the highly contextual impact on humankind in general and the very rare and probably temporary effect on the physical world we leave nothing behind except what we've done to those around us. This is a good thing, whether we want to admit it or not. At the very least our society wouldn't ever be able to hold up to the constant onslaught of "meaningful" lives. If everyone left a lasting imprint in society, or humanity, or nature we would be buried either in constant (probably conflicting) revolutionary changes or the ceaseless torrent of somehow crucial banality of billions of quiet lives slowly crushing the collective human soul with the sheer weight of its loss.
Some people forget this, or at least never really consider it. They fear carcinogens, they avoid "unhealthy" foods based on faddish buzzwords and misunderstood science. They shame and dehumanize people based on what they consider to be unhealthy. We've seen it happen to fat people, smokers, people who drink. Smokers I almost understand, second hand smoke can be pretty fucked up, its inflicting your vice on others which is not alright. Here's a list of things in second hand smoke, and here's what is in car exhaust, oh and here are some of the effects of being in the sun. No one gets out alive, really, most of us leave this place afraid and alone. When you face down that fact does it really matter to you how someone else gets through it as long as they aren't trying to hurt anyone else? It's all poison; some of it, like food, is poison that can keep you alive until it kills you. Some of it, like alcohol, is poison that can kill you faster, but might make all of the ridiculous bullshit we put each other through everyday a little easier to bear. We spend our entire lives walking into our graves so giving people shit for trying to enjoy the funeral march is pretty fucking low. Being healthy is great and all, but nothing gives you the right to be a dick.
No one wins at life, not really. You might do well in a societal sense; monetary success, social standing, strong community presence, and those things are as good as any accomplishment. Then you die. We all die eventually, and other than the highly contextual impact on humankind in general and the very rare and probably temporary effect on the physical world we leave nothing behind except what we've done to those around us. This is a good thing, whether we want to admit it or not. At the very least our society wouldn't ever be able to hold up to the constant onslaught of "meaningful" lives. If everyone left a lasting imprint in society, or humanity, or nature we would be buried either in constant (probably conflicting) revolutionary changes or the ceaseless torrent of somehow crucial banality of billions of quiet lives slowly crushing the collective human soul with the sheer weight of its loss.
Some people forget this, or at least never really consider it. They fear carcinogens, they avoid "unhealthy" foods based on faddish buzzwords and misunderstood science. They shame and dehumanize people based on what they consider to be unhealthy. We've seen it happen to fat people, smokers, people who drink. Smokers I almost understand, second hand smoke can be pretty fucked up, its inflicting your vice on others which is not alright. Here's a list of things in second hand smoke, and here's what is in car exhaust, oh and here are some of the effects of being in the sun. No one gets out alive, really, most of us leave this place afraid and alone. When you face down that fact does it really matter to you how someone else gets through it as long as they aren't trying to hurt anyone else? It's all poison; some of it, like food, is poison that can keep you alive until it kills you. Some of it, like alcohol, is poison that can kill you faster, but might make all of the ridiculous bullshit we put each other through everyday a little easier to bear. We spend our entire lives walking into our graves so giving people shit for trying to enjoy the funeral march is pretty fucking low. Being healthy is great and all, but nothing gives you the right to be a dick.
Monday, April 20, 2015
The Rules
I've been thinking a lot lately about practical morality. I know normally I'm more an ethics guy, and I stand by my prioritizing ethics over morality. But the rules people live by are important and I think we can all benefit from discussing them. So here are mine, this list can and probably will grow as shit happens and points are inevitably made. Feel free to comment with your list or rules you find important that you think I missed. (Disclaimer: These rules are discussed in a metaphorical tone, Kinda Whatevs does not condone or support the doing of harm (no matter how appropriate) to people (no matter how deserving). Neither Kinda Whatevs or its representatives espouse the breaking of laws or the destructive flouting of social conventions.)
1. Confirm Your Kill: This rule is just as true of violence as it is of chores. If you start something, don't just finish it, make fucking sure its done. Any number of problems is prevented by just making sure that the task you set out to do really is a done deal. This particular rule grows from the old "anything worth doing is worth doing well" maxim, only focused more directly on the solving of problems.
2. Be a Person: I've always found it vitally important to define personhood. Even more so for the individual than for society. A civilization has to on some level acquiesce to the least possible definition of personhood but I feel like one should hold themselves to a higher standard than the bare minimum of what society can call a person. In that vein, I think everyone should at some point sit down and define for themselves what it means to be a person, not just a human. You don't have to (and shouldn't) enforce this definition on others, but you should absolutely ensure that you live up to it... and probably avoid people who fall short of your definition to avoid the inevitable preventable conflict.
3. Don't Be That Guy: We all know That Guy. Sex, gender, creed, color, there is no category of human designation that is immune to That Guy. That Guy can come from anywhere, be anyone, but they are always a dick, they're Machiavellian, they're shitty, they lack loyalty, compassion and any sense of comradery. Fuck That Guy, its not even enough to not be That Guy, you should do everything you can to not seem like That Guy just to avoid confusion, at least partially because of Rule 4.
4. Kill That Guy: You probably don't have to actually kill this fucker, but definitely cut them out of your life. Nothing good ever comes from dealing with That Guy. Ever. Avoid whenever possible and do whatever you can be comfortable with to keep them out of your shit.
5. We Kill Monsters: Evil prevails because the Good fail to act or whatever. If you see someone being hurt and you do nothing then you are culpable. Not as fully as the one doing harm, but if you can do something and you don't then fuck you, you fail at society. Once again, you don't have to hurt anybody, but we have a responsibility as members of a society to help each other, that is the entire reason behind civilization.
1. Confirm Your Kill: This rule is just as true of violence as it is of chores. If you start something, don't just finish it, make fucking sure its done. Any number of problems is prevented by just making sure that the task you set out to do really is a done deal. This particular rule grows from the old "anything worth doing is worth doing well" maxim, only focused more directly on the solving of problems.
2. Be a Person: I've always found it vitally important to define personhood. Even more so for the individual than for society. A civilization has to on some level acquiesce to the least possible definition of personhood but I feel like one should hold themselves to a higher standard than the bare minimum of what society can call a person. In that vein, I think everyone should at some point sit down and define for themselves what it means to be a person, not just a human. You don't have to (and shouldn't) enforce this definition on others, but you should absolutely ensure that you live up to it... and probably avoid people who fall short of your definition to avoid the inevitable preventable conflict.
3. Don't Be That Guy: We all know That Guy. Sex, gender, creed, color, there is no category of human designation that is immune to That Guy. That Guy can come from anywhere, be anyone, but they are always a dick, they're Machiavellian, they're shitty, they lack loyalty, compassion and any sense of comradery. Fuck That Guy, its not even enough to not be That Guy, you should do everything you can to not seem like That Guy just to avoid confusion, at least partially because of Rule 4.
4. Kill That Guy: You probably don't have to actually kill this fucker, but definitely cut them out of your life. Nothing good ever comes from dealing with That Guy. Ever. Avoid whenever possible and do whatever you can be comfortable with to keep them out of your shit.
5. We Kill Monsters: Evil prevails because the Good fail to act or whatever. If you see someone being hurt and you do nothing then you are culpable. Not as fully as the one doing harm, but if you can do something and you don't then fuck you, you fail at society. Once again, you don't have to hurt anybody, but we have a responsibility as members of a society to help each other, that is the entire reason behind civilization.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Fuck You, Don't Pay Me
So here's a weird thing; I don't like getting paid. Not for my labor, not for goods, not at fucking all. Handling money in general bothers the fuck out of me. I've thought a great deal about why this is and how it happened that the absolute basis of our society came to repulse me. I'm not entirely sure how this state of affairs came about but I do have some reasons.
The main reason, I think, is that being paid to do a thing manipulates the nature of that thing. I'm no longer doing a thing because I want to or because I enjoy it, I'm doing it because I've been bought. At least rented. Now, this is probably some deep-seated fuckery from the circumstances of my rearing or whatever, but that doesn't make it less of a problem. Its to the point that if someone offers to pay me for say, my fucking delicious homemade molasses bacon, I not only don't want to give them any more, but I don't even want to make it anymore. Because clearly this person doesn't appreciate the act of love and attempt at comradery represented by my bacon, and if they don't then what's the fucking point. By offering to pay me it takes a fun, tasty offering of friendship and reduces it, and thus me and my friendship, to a commodity.
That's kind of the rub here, getting paid makes me feel cheap. I don't really value my own survival for its own sake. The things I do are done for earnest companionship, shared and personal joy and, fuck forbid, because I genuinely believe in what's being done. Getting monetarily remunerated just takes all of those great, ephemeral joys and tries to reduce them to a grubby, coke-stained stack of bills. Or worse, a digital means of survival that can only exist theoretically for me. It's saying that yeah, what I do is great and all, but you'd rather wave me away with money than allow a connection to form.
I fully recognize my unacceptable luck at having my needs accounted for, I don't deny for a second that this is a problem evoked only from a position of plenty. Unfortunately, my marketable skills consist of small batch baconry and the ability to swear on the internet, so my prospects are slim on my own. And considering my little neurosis gets worse the more abject my poverty and completely predates my current relative comfort I have, I would be fucked without my goddamn amazing wifemonster. At the same time, I think it says something absolutely disgusting about our culture when the knee jerk response to an attempt at brotherhood or an exercise in delight that results in a physical object, is "Here's some money so you'll keep doing that for me."
The main reason, I think, is that being paid to do a thing manipulates the nature of that thing. I'm no longer doing a thing because I want to or because I enjoy it, I'm doing it because I've been bought. At least rented. Now, this is probably some deep-seated fuckery from the circumstances of my rearing or whatever, but that doesn't make it less of a problem. Its to the point that if someone offers to pay me for say, my fucking delicious homemade molasses bacon, I not only don't want to give them any more, but I don't even want to make it anymore. Because clearly this person doesn't appreciate the act of love and attempt at comradery represented by my bacon, and if they don't then what's the fucking point. By offering to pay me it takes a fun, tasty offering of friendship and reduces it, and thus me and my friendship, to a commodity.
That's kind of the rub here, getting paid makes me feel cheap. I don't really value my own survival for its own sake. The things I do are done for earnest companionship, shared and personal joy and, fuck forbid, because I genuinely believe in what's being done. Getting monetarily remunerated just takes all of those great, ephemeral joys and tries to reduce them to a grubby, coke-stained stack of bills. Or worse, a digital means of survival that can only exist theoretically for me. It's saying that yeah, what I do is great and all, but you'd rather wave me away with money than allow a connection to form.
I fully recognize my unacceptable luck at having my needs accounted for, I don't deny for a second that this is a problem evoked only from a position of plenty. Unfortunately, my marketable skills consist of small batch baconry and the ability to swear on the internet, so my prospects are slim on my own. And considering my little neurosis gets worse the more abject my poverty and completely predates my current relative comfort I have, I would be fucked without my goddamn amazing wifemonster. At the same time, I think it says something absolutely disgusting about our culture when the knee jerk response to an attempt at brotherhood or an exercise in delight that results in a physical object, is "Here's some money so you'll keep doing that for me."
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Thank You Jeremy
Just this today. Brian and I talk about this shit... just entirely too much. We're creatives at heart, and this is a topic that we grind on even more at home then we do on here. I've had this exact argument in various states with varying degrees of success and I wish with all of my heart that I had ever managed the clarity and passion Jeremy brings to this rant. We here at Kinda Whatevs are once again in your debt sir. Now if you'll excuse me I need to see if I'll ever finish my shitty little story.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
An Open Letter To PETA
Dear PETA,
You people are monsters and you need to stop. You talk about the ethical treatment of animals, something that I believe should be something that people actually talk about, but then you kill 88.3% of the animals you take in. 88.3%! You could have left the animals on the street and they would have had a better chance to survive. You are monsters just on that point alone, especially after you protest against shelters for committing euthanasia. What makes you even worse? You hired a lobbyist to stop Virginia state from restricting euthanasia of animals. This is something I thought you guys would appreciate: something that would stop people from killing animals. But noooooo, you hire one of the most notorious lobbyists in history to make sure you can still kill animals at your whim.
The Virgina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services filed a report in 2010 that investigated their shelters and found that 90% of the euthanized animals were killed within 24 hours of their arrival at the shelter. You didn't even try to adopt out those animals, did you?
As I said in the first paragraph, I am a believer that treating animals in a humane way is important. I disagree about a few of your other policies and beliefs (specifically about why being vegan is better) but the main view you have, I share.
Most of our meat industry is bad for animals in terms of living conditions. We are in a time in which technological advancement is moving so quickly, you would be vastly better served to help fund technology that replaces animal products or reduces the cruelty of conditions. You are a huge organization, spend some of that money you spend making video games that shame imaginary violence against animals on researching how to make technology not hurt animals. I think that animal testing is kinda fucked up, but its also how we create vaccines and treatments for stuff like AIDS so instead of just protesting, help develop technology for testing without using live subjects. And on the side of animal adoptions, I think that there should be someplace that treats animals well and actually tries to adopt them.
Oh wait, there totally is. The Humane Society doesn't kill any animals, and their rates of adoption are amazing, at least here in Seattle, you have to check individual sites for numbers of adoptions and I didn't feel like looking through all of them. The humane society trumps you completely. You claim on your website that no kill shelters don't accept animals with diseases and massive injuries, but I couldn't find anything like that on the Humane societies website, even though they are a no kill shelter.
So here is my idea for you PETA. Stop killing animals. Start creating new technology. You want to cause change? Create an alternative. Don't just say there should be one and then moralize about how the things you do aren't fucking evil because its you doing them. Instead of making Billboards that show Pink naked, use the money you would have given her to do actual good for the beautiful plethora of life on this planet.
Sincerely,
Brian
You people are monsters and you need to stop. You talk about the ethical treatment of animals, something that I believe should be something that people actually talk about, but then you kill 88.3% of the animals you take in. 88.3%! You could have left the animals on the street and they would have had a better chance to survive. You are monsters just on that point alone, especially after you protest against shelters for committing euthanasia. What makes you even worse? You hired a lobbyist to stop Virginia state from restricting euthanasia of animals. This is something I thought you guys would appreciate: something that would stop people from killing animals. But noooooo, you hire one of the most notorious lobbyists in history to make sure you can still kill animals at your whim.
The Virgina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services filed a report in 2010 that investigated their shelters and found that 90% of the euthanized animals were killed within 24 hours of their arrival at the shelter. You didn't even try to adopt out those animals, did you?
As I said in the first paragraph, I am a believer that treating animals in a humane way is important. I disagree about a few of your other policies and beliefs (specifically about why being vegan is better) but the main view you have, I share.
Most of our meat industry is bad for animals in terms of living conditions. We are in a time in which technological advancement is moving so quickly, you would be vastly better served to help fund technology that replaces animal products or reduces the cruelty of conditions. You are a huge organization, spend some of that money you spend making video games that shame imaginary violence against animals on researching how to make technology not hurt animals. I think that animal testing is kinda fucked up, but its also how we create vaccines and treatments for stuff like AIDS so instead of just protesting, help develop technology for testing without using live subjects. And on the side of animal adoptions, I think that there should be someplace that treats animals well and actually tries to adopt them.
Oh wait, there totally is. The Humane Society doesn't kill any animals, and their rates of adoption are amazing, at least here in Seattle, you have to check individual sites for numbers of adoptions and I didn't feel like looking through all of them. The humane society trumps you completely. You claim on your website that no kill shelters don't accept animals with diseases and massive injuries, but I couldn't find anything like that on the Humane societies website, even though they are a no kill shelter.
So here is my idea for you PETA. Stop killing animals. Start creating new technology. You want to cause change? Create an alternative. Don't just say there should be one and then moralize about how the things you do aren't fucking evil because its you doing them. Instead of making Billboards that show Pink naked, use the money you would have given her to do actual good for the beautiful plethora of life on this planet.
Sincerely,
Brian
Monday, February 9, 2015
What's All This Faggotry Then?
I feel like we've been doing pretty well lately, not getting too rantish. So lets talk about slurs. Now, I feel the need to preface this with some context. I look like what would happen if Thor had a thing about cake and couldn't be bothered to shave, this tends to shade the audience against anything I would have to say about hate speech with either bland apologetics or low rent nazi propaganda. I'm also bisexual, which given my appearance tends to go unnoticed. It also opens me up to a weird perspective on hate speech because, while I'm sensitive to it, most people don't bother to sensor themselves around me. Given that, I've come up with a rule. Just don't be a dick about it.
As with any kind of profanity, slurs are bound entirely by context. So while I can understand a bit of discomfort if someone you don't know very well yells "faggot", if you have a reasonable expectation that they aren't actually decrying someones sexual preference leave them the fuck alone about it. Yes that word is one used by a certain group to make another group feel bad. Its also an expletive and those are just to useful to ignore. The meaning that it has with the offended group relates entirely to the fact that said group identifies with the word. Faggot has meant a lot of things over the years, but you don't hear old ladies getting up in arms about it. No pagans (I sincerely fucking hope) getting their knickers twisted about references to burning heretics. I tend to agree with Louis C.K., faggot only actually refers to a caricature, not necessarily of homosexuals but of a specific brand of annoying pedant. No person should ever acknowledge themselves as a caricature. I'm sure that there are some people who definitely mean gay people when they say that, just as I'm sure that there are some people how very much mean it in the pejorative when they utter any variation on the word "nigger". Those people are using words wrong. Not just those words, all words. They have misappropriated language and should be disregarded.
The trick here is something we've talked about before at some length, language is completely reliant on context. The idea of a word that is inherently bad is absurd in the absolute, as evidenced by the sheer fact that meanings can change. In fact I tend to argue that by legislating language we give certain words undue power. By limiting words like faggot and nigger we're essentially reserving them for the people who are just going to be cunts about their use and that isn't good for anyone. Suddenly, using a certain word ends conversations and shuts down discourse. The only words that should ever have that kind of power are "good bye" and its cousins. Lets get back to being people, stop blaming words for their use and start blaming people for their ignorance and hate.
As with any kind of profanity, slurs are bound entirely by context. So while I can understand a bit of discomfort if someone you don't know very well yells "faggot", if you have a reasonable expectation that they aren't actually decrying someones sexual preference leave them the fuck alone about it. Yes that word is one used by a certain group to make another group feel bad. Its also an expletive and those are just to useful to ignore. The meaning that it has with the offended group relates entirely to the fact that said group identifies with the word. Faggot has meant a lot of things over the years, but you don't hear old ladies getting up in arms about it. No pagans (I sincerely fucking hope) getting their knickers twisted about references to burning heretics. I tend to agree with Louis C.K., faggot only actually refers to a caricature, not necessarily of homosexuals but of a specific brand of annoying pedant. No person should ever acknowledge themselves as a caricature. I'm sure that there are some people who definitely mean gay people when they say that, just as I'm sure that there are some people how very much mean it in the pejorative when they utter any variation on the word "nigger". Those people are using words wrong. Not just those words, all words. They have misappropriated language and should be disregarded.
The trick here is something we've talked about before at some length, language is completely reliant on context. The idea of a word that is inherently bad is absurd in the absolute, as evidenced by the sheer fact that meanings can change. In fact I tend to argue that by legislating language we give certain words undue power. By limiting words like faggot and nigger we're essentially reserving them for the people who are just going to be cunts about their use and that isn't good for anyone. Suddenly, using a certain word ends conversations and shuts down discourse. The only words that should ever have that kind of power are "good bye" and its cousins. Lets get back to being people, stop blaming words for their use and start blaming people for their ignorance and hate.
Monday, January 12, 2015
The Downward Spiral is My Favorite Carnival Ride
I've written about my anger issues before, and I've written about depression both in personal and general senses. Recently, its become important to me to note how these things interact and what its like when they do.
First let me say, if you have rage+depression issues, I'm sorry. You're probably fucked. I'm sure there are extensive medication and therapy cocktails that might pull some people out but I've no faith in them. I've yet to see any theory of anger management that seems even vaguely effective and, while I'm sure that many people are helped by modern depression treatments, I find that depression has too many sharp edges that don't take to softening.
The trouble with being a rage addicted depressive is that the cycle never really ends. You get depressed, so you get sensitive, then something happens (usually something meaningless) and you flip the fuck out. When all the face-kicking and abyssal glossolalia has passed you're left feeling (rightly) like a colossal, diseased dick; so your depression gets worse because now you have a reason to hate yourself. As the depression gets worse you get more sensitive and less able to completely describe how you feel or what you are thinking, making you more likely to get mad again and continue the cycle.
Now for the bad news. Nothing you are capable of doing about it yourself will make it any better. Once again, therapy/medication have the potential to save a few of us, but I've yet to see any good works be done. If you try to mitigate your rage the people around you will likely be unable to fully let go of the fact that you are prone to spectacular bouts of aggression. Most people have difficulty distinguishing between you trying to let go of your anger so it doesn't poison you and you being a fucking psychotic. Worse, other people trying to tell you that everything is okay or that they don't blame you will only reinforce the underlying depressive force behind the anger.
I think about killing myself the same way most people think about ordering dinner. I think about assaulting others as at worst an interesting way to spend a day. I've spent my whole life trying to find a way to handle this. I've tried giving in and letting my imbalance run me, I've tried fighting it, I've tried distance and detachment. I've even tried seeking help. The most I can offer is this, surround yourself with forgiving people who love you and want to see you get better and keep fighting. I have to hope that this gets better, I'm sure I've seen it happen somewhere. Probably.
First let me say, if you have rage+depression issues, I'm sorry. You're probably fucked. I'm sure there are extensive medication and therapy cocktails that might pull some people out but I've no faith in them. I've yet to see any theory of anger management that seems even vaguely effective and, while I'm sure that many people are helped by modern depression treatments, I find that depression has too many sharp edges that don't take to softening.
The trouble with being a rage addicted depressive is that the cycle never really ends. You get depressed, so you get sensitive, then something happens (usually something meaningless) and you flip the fuck out. When all the face-kicking and abyssal glossolalia has passed you're left feeling (rightly) like a colossal, diseased dick; so your depression gets worse because now you have a reason to hate yourself. As the depression gets worse you get more sensitive and less able to completely describe how you feel or what you are thinking, making you more likely to get mad again and continue the cycle.
Now for the bad news. Nothing you are capable of doing about it yourself will make it any better. Once again, therapy/medication have the potential to save a few of us, but I've yet to see any good works be done. If you try to mitigate your rage the people around you will likely be unable to fully let go of the fact that you are prone to spectacular bouts of aggression. Most people have difficulty distinguishing between you trying to let go of your anger so it doesn't poison you and you being a fucking psychotic. Worse, other people trying to tell you that everything is okay or that they don't blame you will only reinforce the underlying depressive force behind the anger.
I think about killing myself the same way most people think about ordering dinner. I think about assaulting others as at worst an interesting way to spend a day. I've spent my whole life trying to find a way to handle this. I've tried giving in and letting my imbalance run me, I've tried fighting it, I've tried distance and detachment. I've even tried seeking help. The most I can offer is this, surround yourself with forgiving people who love you and want to see you get better and keep fighting. I have to hope that this gets better, I'm sure I've seen it happen somewhere. Probably.
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 1, 2014
You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry
Alright folks, we're back, relocated, recaffeinated, and (after entirely too fucking long) possessed of internet fit to shake the heavens or something. As is tradition, we're gonna leap right back into it with me ranting. The topic of the day is something close to my heart in several, possibly dangerous, ways. Today I'm going to discuss anger. My anger specifically. Its not that I don't care about the righteous indignation of others or the mindless, squalling, rage that some partake of. It isn't even that my anger is shiny and pretty and made of magical hats, though that may bare discussion at a later date.
I'm going to talk about my anger, and the joys and pitfalls therein, because its the only anger I can effectively describe. As some of the more observant readers may have noticed I'm a bit prone to aggression. Rage comes to me with an ease that has been rightfully described as hopeless. I'm pretty good at keeping it in hand enough to avoid actually injuring someone. Unfortunately that doesn't counter the fact that I regularly get the sort of scorched-earth, damn-the-family-line-forever kind of mad that is largely reserved for doomed anti-heroes and relatable villains. Now, I can't say that was never really a problem, mostly because I never really bothered to examine it, but it was something that I never felt I could really do anything about. I mean reactive catharsis tends to be a dopamine loop of the worst kind, and suppressing anger just seems like a great way to snap your fucking brain and wake up in the ward.
Being angry feels really, really good. Dangerously good. It makes me feel powerful, active, motivated in ways that have been unavailable to me in any other state. Its also caused me to hurt people I care about, lose opportunities that I needed to take, and lose arguments that I couldn't afford to lose, not because I was wrong or not thinking clearly, but because I was mad and so my audience was incapable of receiving my point. I've been trying to let go of my anger recently. Not bottle it up or let it out, just let it go. Stop myself and consider the rage itself. Is it productive? Is it meaningful? Or is it just a fire in my chest waiting for the rest of me to catch. It helps, and it is getting better. Do I still get mad enough I feel like I'm going to pass out from the headache it gives me, yes, but only when a succession of idiotic, incompetent cunts absolutely and continuously fails at their one and only job for two weeks despite proper preparation and constant direction. (Later there will be a link here to Brian's post about our adventures in internet acquisition.) I just try and let the useless anger go, go cook something until I calm down, take a few deep breaths and watch a movie, whatever. This is a troublesome process but it is helping. I'm pretty sure I'll always be a wrathful, hate-ridden person; but I refuse to let that hate run roughshod over my life anymore.
I'm going to talk about my anger, and the joys and pitfalls therein, because its the only anger I can effectively describe. As some of the more observant readers may have noticed I'm a bit prone to aggression. Rage comes to me with an ease that has been rightfully described as hopeless. I'm pretty good at keeping it in hand enough to avoid actually injuring someone. Unfortunately that doesn't counter the fact that I regularly get the sort of scorched-earth, damn-the-family-line-forever kind of mad that is largely reserved for doomed anti-heroes and relatable villains. Now, I can't say that was never really a problem, mostly because I never really bothered to examine it, but it was something that I never felt I could really do anything about. I mean reactive catharsis tends to be a dopamine loop of the worst kind, and suppressing anger just seems like a great way to snap your fucking brain and wake up in the ward.
Being angry feels really, really good. Dangerously good. It makes me feel powerful, active, motivated in ways that have been unavailable to me in any other state. Its also caused me to hurt people I care about, lose opportunities that I needed to take, and lose arguments that I couldn't afford to lose, not because I was wrong or not thinking clearly, but because I was mad and so my audience was incapable of receiving my point. I've been trying to let go of my anger recently. Not bottle it up or let it out, just let it go. Stop myself and consider the rage itself. Is it productive? Is it meaningful? Or is it just a fire in my chest waiting for the rest of me to catch. It helps, and it is getting better. Do I still get mad enough I feel like I'm going to pass out from the headache it gives me, yes, but only when a succession of idiotic, incompetent cunts absolutely and continuously fails at their one and only job for two weeks despite proper preparation and constant direction. (Later there will be a link here to Brian's post about our adventures in internet acquisition.) I just try and let the useless anger go, go cook something until I calm down, take a few deep breaths and watch a movie, whatever. This is a troublesome process but it is helping. I'm pretty sure I'll always be a wrathful, hate-ridden person; but I refuse to let that hate run roughshod over my life anymore.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
You will Laugh and You Will Play and You Will Like it
There is a side effect of nihilism that bugs the hell out of me. I've mentioned my love for nihilism before but it needs to be known that its not a relationship composed solely of orgasms and cupcakes. The problem lies with the fact that existential prioritization is often difficult to maintain without some universal source of value. Since this issue tends to be such a bug fucker too me I have determined a solution. Happiness. In a universe without intrinsic values, happiness ought to be the clearest priority. It seems obvious but the maximization of pleasure and the minimization of pain is something that a lot of people have a problem with.
Its important to note that I'm not talking about utilitarianism, I'm not going into ethics. I'm not concerned, in this instance, with optimizing groups. I'm also not speaking from a objectivist perspective. Mostly because I'm an adult and I understand that I exist within a system and that other people are actually people. I am speaking to the social-subjective, the self within the system. In a nihilistic world, prioritizing your own happiness is the rational option. The primary arguments against this idea tends to land either on the point that some people find happiness in hurting others or as a misplaced attack on objectivism.
My response to the objectivist association bears an unfortunate similarity to the new age adage "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". My little philosophic solution does come with the caveat that you didn't fail the bit of kindergarten where they teach you that hurting other people is fucked up. Subjective joy isn't a resource limited in the subjective joy of others, and if it is for you... just work your shit out man. There might not be any intrinsic value to life, but being an anti-social dickhead is a shit way to go about it. This is not a belief shared by objectivism.
In response to the other argument, i.e. some people take pleasure in hurting others, against this maxim my answer is two prong. Yes, and so what. Some people are fucked up. There are consequences in place for people being fucked up. There are people in the world who take joy in being the people who stop fucked up shit. Don't limit everyone's options because a few people can't handle their shit.
But, I digress. If there is not essential meaning to your life then there is no reason to not be happy. Any pain is then either unavoidable or optional. If pain is either unavoidable or optional and your happiness doesn't violate some eternal mandate then seeking to feel good while avoiding feeling bad is just common sense. There isn't really anything else to say about it, its fucking simple, and the fact that it isn't a more apparent solution kinda boggles me.
Its important to note that I'm not talking about utilitarianism, I'm not going into ethics. I'm not concerned, in this instance, with optimizing groups. I'm also not speaking from a objectivist perspective. Mostly because I'm an adult and I understand that I exist within a system and that other people are actually people. I am speaking to the social-subjective, the self within the system. In a nihilistic world, prioritizing your own happiness is the rational option. The primary arguments against this idea tends to land either on the point that some people find happiness in hurting others or as a misplaced attack on objectivism.
My response to the objectivist association bears an unfortunate similarity to the new age adage "an it harm none, do what thou wilt". My little philosophic solution does come with the caveat that you didn't fail the bit of kindergarten where they teach you that hurting other people is fucked up. Subjective joy isn't a resource limited in the subjective joy of others, and if it is for you... just work your shit out man. There might not be any intrinsic value to life, but being an anti-social dickhead is a shit way to go about it. This is not a belief shared by objectivism.
In response to the other argument, i.e. some people take pleasure in hurting others, against this maxim my answer is two prong. Yes, and so what. Some people are fucked up. There are consequences in place for people being fucked up. There are people in the world who take joy in being the people who stop fucked up shit. Don't limit everyone's options because a few people can't handle their shit.
But, I digress. If there is not essential meaning to your life then there is no reason to not be happy. Any pain is then either unavoidable or optional. If pain is either unavoidable or optional and your happiness doesn't violate some eternal mandate then seeking to feel good while avoiding feeling bad is just common sense. There isn't really anything else to say about it, its fucking simple, and the fact that it isn't a more apparent solution kinda boggles me.
Friday, October 3, 2014
The Theme From Mash Song
For the bulk of my life I have been at some level of depression. Because of this I have been in some very dark states of mind and, at times, suicide has seemed like the best possible solution to the problem. Every time I have gotten to this position I tend to look around on the internet to find information on suicide and I have noticed something disturbing every time someone asks about committing suicide ("how can I do it painlessly?"/"what is the best way to commit suicide?" are common questions asked on forums).
Death tends to make people uncomfortable, and because of this people tend to not want to talk about suicide in a way that would be even remotely productive. Most responses to people who want to commit suicide are along the line of "you're just being selfish", "you just want attention","Its a permanent solution to a temporary problem" or "life is sacred". These are bad responses, and if the person is in a suicidal state of mind can just drive them further down that path; i.e. "fuck you! You can't tell me what to do". Do you notice something wrong about all of the above responses? You should.
I feel I need to put a disclaimer here. Not all of the websites I visited to check these had just these responses, some people responded in actually helpful ways, I just seek to explain the difference between them.
There are many problems in the way that people respond to suicide, the most glaring of which (to me at least) is by spouting platitudes instead of trying to talk through the problem. The responses "Life is sacred" and "permanent solution to a temporary problem" are just meaningless fucking platitudes designed to allay guilt while failing to engage the actual issue. If you are in a position where suicide is something you are genuinely considering life will not be meaningful. So by telling the person who doesn't put any value on their own life that they should "just put value in it" you are ultimately saying nothing. Meanwhile the "temporary problems" might not be so temporary. Unless the person fully explains their situation to you this statement offers nothing because you're making patronizing assumptions that will probably exacerbate the issue. Death with dignity laws have been passed in a few places because sometimes death is preferable to life in certain circumstances. I will admit sometimes people jump to suicide as being a solution too quickly, but just pointing out that its not the best solution doesn't do anything in the way of offering alternatives. And yes, sometimes the problems are temporary but that doesn't always look that way when you are in the midst of the problem.
The same problems arise from the responses that blame the person who wants to commit suicide. "You are being selfish" and "You just want attention" are responses that will only add to the problem. Recent studies on why suicide happens have shown that people who kill themselves tend to feel that they are burdensome to others. By adding blame to people who may be making a serious claim you might only be pushing them further down that path. The problem with the statements analyzed in the last paragraph and the ones in the current paragraph come down to one major theme: By issuing moralistic platitudes instead of trying to help, you are contributing to the problem.
Without seeking to understand where the person is coming from nothing you say will be helpful. The best way to respond to someone who wants to commit suicide is to talk with them about it and let them know that you are there to talk to. If you just want to say that you tried to help by spouting some cliche sentiment about how "life is precious", then the best thing that can be said about your "effort" is that you are not helping. Talking through problems isn't always effective, but the very least you can do is provide them with a place to look for people to talk to. Every time I have thought about suicide talking with people has helped, but this is just my personal experience. Some people will still commit suicide even after talking with people, but at least you will have actually tried to help.
(I would also like to point out this set of Hyperbole And A Half posts part 1 and part 2. This is one of the best illustrations of depression and how someone can deal with it that I have seen and deserves a read. Also the rest of her blog is quite good and I would recommend reading through it.)
Monday, September 29, 2014
Walk into the Club Like What Up I Appreciate Your Needs
Sex is kind of a tricky subject to a lot of people. Some people (wrongly) believe that its an appropriate reward for various behaviors; men who think that not being an asshole entitles them to sex, women who treat sex as a negotiation tactic. Other (wrongly) demonize it or put arbitrary blanket restrictions on its practice. I mean denying consenting adults the right to do as they please with other consenting adults in a private setting, not things like fucking children or those incapable of affirmative consent. Those aren't arbitrary restrictions, those are basic fucking decency and the fact that we need the level of specificity we do says truly fucking disgusting things about a certain percentage of the population. I digress, the point I'm going to assail today is one of slightly less lofty goals. Today I want to talk about how we deal with come-ons.
I don't have any problem with people trying to fuck, provided once again that all parties are of age and can actively consent. It does bother me, however, that more and more, people are trying to restrict where its acceptable to look for a lay. I completely appreciate that people don't like to be accosted by horny passersby on the street; I don't think its appropriate to try and fuck people at your place of work. These restrictions make sense, people ought to be allowed to go about their day without being harassed. The problem I see is that there are certain factions, or possibly just vocal individuals, who apparently want to make all places unacceptable for the casual fuck-seeker.
I've seen complaints about people trying to pick up people at clubs. That is fucking absurd. I will grant that there are groups of people who do not go to clubs to get lucky. I will even grant that these people have every right to be at the club without seeking coitus. It needs to be said, however, that the social context has established that clubs are the best place to go to find someone to have sex with. So being offended by someone asking to fuck you at a club is very much like being offended by someone asking if you'd like some cake at a birthday party. Now yes, some people are entirely too fucking persistent; and yes, some people are fucking assholes in their methodology (I'm looking at you "pick up artists"). But those people are dicks in general, the fact that they are trying to find sex isn't the real issue, the issue is that they're dicks.
The biggest trouble I find with this trend of eliminating opportunities for people to seek casual sex is that it provides no alternative. There will always be people looking for some no-strings loving, and giving them no acceptable place to seek it is pretty fucked up. I, breaking spectacularly from my standard practice, have a suggestion to solve this problem. I propose, breaking even further from the norm, a business opportunity. We need an industry built on sex positive, casual encounters. A place explicitly and in no uncertain terms for finding someone to fuck. A meatspace location, because not everyone digs the various internet opportunities, with age restrictive entrance criteria and a clearly demarcated set of rules to limit assholery. It could even have a bouncer whose only job was to make sure that couples leaving the establishment where both at least mostly sober and consenting. I propose calling it "The Hole S/Hebang"
I don't have any problem with people trying to fuck, provided once again that all parties are of age and can actively consent. It does bother me, however, that more and more, people are trying to restrict where its acceptable to look for a lay. I completely appreciate that people don't like to be accosted by horny passersby on the street; I don't think its appropriate to try and fuck people at your place of work. These restrictions make sense, people ought to be allowed to go about their day without being harassed. The problem I see is that there are certain factions, or possibly just vocal individuals, who apparently want to make all places unacceptable for the casual fuck-seeker.
I've seen complaints about people trying to pick up people at clubs. That is fucking absurd. I will grant that there are groups of people who do not go to clubs to get lucky. I will even grant that these people have every right to be at the club without seeking coitus. It needs to be said, however, that the social context has established that clubs are the best place to go to find someone to have sex with. So being offended by someone asking to fuck you at a club is very much like being offended by someone asking if you'd like some cake at a birthday party. Now yes, some people are entirely too fucking persistent; and yes, some people are fucking assholes in their methodology (I'm looking at you "pick up artists"). But those people are dicks in general, the fact that they are trying to find sex isn't the real issue, the issue is that they're dicks.
The biggest trouble I find with this trend of eliminating opportunities for people to seek casual sex is that it provides no alternative. There will always be people looking for some no-strings loving, and giving them no acceptable place to seek it is pretty fucked up. I, breaking spectacularly from my standard practice, have a suggestion to solve this problem. I propose, breaking even further from the norm, a business opportunity. We need an industry built on sex positive, casual encounters. A place explicitly and in no uncertain terms for finding someone to fuck. A meatspace location, because not everyone digs the various internet opportunities, with age restrictive entrance criteria and a clearly demarcated set of rules to limit assholery. It could even have a bouncer whose only job was to make sure that couples leaving the establishment where both at least mostly sober and consenting. I propose calling it "The Hole S/Hebang"
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Discriminating Tastes
Discrimination ties in to pretty much everything we've been talking about lately, really pretty much every issue society faces on some level or another. Now, we've kinda danced around this as a direct topic for a while, but I'm shit on the dance floor and its time to approach this.
There is a simple exercise anyone can do to determine if they're engaging in this particular variety of asshatery: if you swap the active noun in your argument to the contextually appropriate noun describing you, and the argument then sounds ridiculous, you are being a cunt. A fair example would be, say, refusing to allow heterosexual couples to adopt children. Sound pretty fucking stupid? Yet it somehow slides through when laws are passed denying that right to homosexuals. The only way this makes sense is if you in someway believe that the number of cocks available during child-rearing is a critical factor. For the record if you believe that cocks ought to play any role, other than possibly creation, in a child's life you need to seek some pretty significant help, you fucking pedophile you. The idea of men only making 75 cents to every dollar a woman in the same position makes piss you off? That's because someone's pay being effected by absolutely anything other than performance is fucking discrimination. And no, it doesn't fucking matter that women can get maternity leave, because only allowing women to take time off to be a parent is discrimination. It's also a pretty scathing indictment of the conservative rallying cry for "family values"; but that's a different post entirely.
That rule is essentially a forced empathy hack; actively, if only linguistically, putting you in the position of an opposing party. It requires that for a moment you look beyond the tip of your nose and realize that other people are, indeed, people. Its not terribly difficult and, with even a little reflection, its pretty effective at making valuable points. Unfortunately, a life unexamined is still far easier lived. Discrimination is pervasive because knee-jerk solipsism doesn't require any effort, which is notably less than the any-reflection-at-all required for empathy. Sadly the problem isn't just discrimination, it's the oversensitivity towards discrimination.
A while back there was a bit of a tiff regarding the game Cards Against Humanity, in that a small group of women felt that the game was discriminatory against women due to the creators all being male. They've created an alternate set of cards for the game composed from a feminine perspective, some of which are just as funny as, if not better than, cards in the base game; while others are blithe, smug social commentary on the level of a shitty hashtag. While I will completely admit that CAH can be incredibly offensive (no matter how amusing it may be), it's a game made by a small group of friends who happen to be male. I can't speak to their inclusion policy but I can say that in most friend groups exclusion is less a matter of active internal policy and more a concern of external interest. I don't know them, they could very well be douchebags, hell given the game they made its not even unlikely, but I can say that, without knowing them personally, assuming that they are hostile to women is discrimination. In the same way that assuming a group of women making a game about bras, periods and social justice were hostile to men would be discrimination.
Socially, discrimination is a fraught, nuanced issue affecting everyone in one way or another. Layers upon layers of social programming and ill conceived sub-cultural bullshit force people of varying descriptions into various unpleasant roles, (in the most understated way I can think to say that). But individually all it takes to overcome this disgusting, myopic cockheadedness is just the slightest bit of examination and honesty. We all owe it to ourselves and each other to not be such fucking cunts.
There is a simple exercise anyone can do to determine if they're engaging in this particular variety of asshatery: if you swap the active noun in your argument to the contextually appropriate noun describing you, and the argument then sounds ridiculous, you are being a cunt. A fair example would be, say, refusing to allow heterosexual couples to adopt children. Sound pretty fucking stupid? Yet it somehow slides through when laws are passed denying that right to homosexuals. The only way this makes sense is if you in someway believe that the number of cocks available during child-rearing is a critical factor. For the record if you believe that cocks ought to play any role, other than possibly creation, in a child's life you need to seek some pretty significant help, you fucking pedophile you. The idea of men only making 75 cents to every dollar a woman in the same position makes piss you off? That's because someone's pay being effected by absolutely anything other than performance is fucking discrimination. And no, it doesn't fucking matter that women can get maternity leave, because only allowing women to take time off to be a parent is discrimination. It's also a pretty scathing indictment of the conservative rallying cry for "family values"; but that's a different post entirely.
That rule is essentially a forced empathy hack; actively, if only linguistically, putting you in the position of an opposing party. It requires that for a moment you look beyond the tip of your nose and realize that other people are, indeed, people. Its not terribly difficult and, with even a little reflection, its pretty effective at making valuable points. Unfortunately, a life unexamined is still far easier lived. Discrimination is pervasive because knee-jerk solipsism doesn't require any effort, which is notably less than the any-reflection-at-all required for empathy. Sadly the problem isn't just discrimination, it's the oversensitivity towards discrimination.
A while back there was a bit of a tiff regarding the game Cards Against Humanity, in that a small group of women felt that the game was discriminatory against women due to the creators all being male. They've created an alternate set of cards for the game composed from a feminine perspective, some of which are just as funny as, if not better than, cards in the base game; while others are blithe, smug social commentary on the level of a shitty hashtag. While I will completely admit that CAH can be incredibly offensive (no matter how amusing it may be), it's a game made by a small group of friends who happen to be male. I can't speak to their inclusion policy but I can say that in most friend groups exclusion is less a matter of active internal policy and more a concern of external interest. I don't know them, they could very well be douchebags, hell given the game they made its not even unlikely, but I can say that, without knowing them personally, assuming that they are hostile to women is discrimination. In the same way that assuming a group of women making a game about bras, periods and social justice were hostile to men would be discrimination.
Socially, discrimination is a fraught, nuanced issue affecting everyone in one way or another. Layers upon layers of social programming and ill conceived sub-cultural bullshit force people of varying descriptions into various unpleasant roles, (in the most understated way I can think to say that). But individually all it takes to overcome this disgusting, myopic cockheadedness is just the slightest bit of examination and honesty. We all owe it to ourselves and each other to not be such fucking cunts.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Ain't No Place For No Hero
I recently re-watched The Wicker Man, and no not the Nick Cage movie; the good one from 1973, and noticed something that I hadn't before: there is no hero in this movie. There is a protagonist, the sergeant, and an antagonist, basically everyone on Summerisle, but no one that I would consider the hero of the story. This is because all of the major players receive at least some characterization, and because they all have flaws as well as a good side. You are forced to empathize with both sides. Heroes are supposed to be paragons that show us the best human qualities, but the problem with heroes is that they kind of cease to be humans after a while and end up being two dimensional.
Sergeant Howie has been tasked with finding a girl that has been kidnapped and his drive to do so is impressive at times; but he is also xenophobic, aggressive, and self righteous. He spends a large chunk of the movie breaking into people's homes and actively violating their privacy, strong-arming the population in the process. Also he spends quite a lot of time lecturing the islanders about how they are "corrupting the youth" by not teaching them about Jesus, and how their pagan beliefs are evil. The islanders motivation is that they just want to make sure that their island prospers again, which they believe will only happen with a sacrifice of sufficient quality. They are also under attack by an outsider, and as such, treat him coldly in a lot of cases, which Howie views as a kind of insubordination and as responds with hostility. Both sides of this conflict have problems as well as virtues.
The beauty of this kind of narrative setup is that it forces you to analyze the situation and realize that the world presented is not black and white (and hopefully viewers can get the fucking message). My favorite kinds of bad guys in movies are ones that you sympathize with. This empathetic response humanizes the villain and makes for a functional counterpoint to the hero, not just a monolithic evil to be overcome. Movies that tend to hit you on multiple emotional levels tend to make you think, and that is a great thing that people like me tend to look for in a story.
Ozymandias from Watchmen is a great example of this kind of "villain". He is trying to eliminate the problems associated with nationalism by forcing humanity to have to work together against a larger foe. His point of view is understandable, even if you disagree with his methods. Another good version of this type of character is Gerard Butler's character in the movie Law Abiding Citizen. He's a justifiably broken man who's goals reflect his brokenness. All his character is trying to do is show how the justice system doesn't always work, by exploiting its flaws after committing crimes.
Making the good guy also have flaws that are understandable also makes him easier to empathize with, and as such also make him a more believable character. As I stated above, Heroes are representative of ideals and making them flawed twists their moral certitude in interesting and beautiful ways. This makes it harder to call them real "heroes". Superman is a hero, Batman is not. Supes is supposed to represent hope and justice and everything that is shiny, but he also holds a moral position that is incorruptible. This makes him harder to empathize with, but easier to idolize. Batman on the other hand beats the living hell out of people and uses psychological and physical torture to accomplish his goals. You might not agree with how he does it, but you can understand why.
Humans are naturally pack animals, and because of this they will react to a deep, human, empathetic character more strongly than with a shallow, one dimensional character. More rounded/empathetic characters make for better, more believable characters and stories, and I wish we would see more of them.
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.
Friday, August 22, 2014
I, For One, Welcome Our New Robot Overlords.
I love science fiction movies, but there is one aspect that keeps showing up that I think deserves some discussion. As we advance in technology we are going to see more and more complex computers and eventually more and more complex AI. In science fiction AI is often used as cliche` villain, either as just a computer program or a fully functioning robot. These movies have created some of the best villains ever, after all computers are intrinsically better than us. They can, theoretically, continuously improve themselves and outstrip human endeavors into science just because their brains will work far faster, more accurately and with more reliable storage than ours ever will.
Back in May, Stephen Hawking, Stuart Russell , Max Tegmark , and Frank Wilczek jointly wrote an article on AI and the rewards and risks associated with it. Its short and brings up quite a few good points about how we are handling our march towards technological mastery, and I would suggest reading it quickly before continuing. Go ahead, I can wait. I think that they have a good point about being cautious, after all there are people who would use the massive processing power of AI to exert large-scale social control via information and financial manipulation. But I want to talk about something that could also happen with this field. We keep looking at AI as a tool, and in its infancy it is a great tool that we can use to advance society. But what happens when we get to creating strong AI? Strong AI is an AI capable of behaving similarly to humans. I don't mean just acting in accordance to what we view as human either, I mean having actual consciousness.
At this point I would argue that using strong AI as a tool would be ethically unsound. Or in less timid terms: a fucking terrible thing to do. Not just because "what if the AI decides to kill us in retaliation" but because it would be slavery to force something with verifiable consciousness to work against its will, even if that is why it was created, and slavery is fundamentally fucked up. This is kind of the impetus for every evil AI in science fiction. Well, not every AI, but a lot of them. When you force someone into servitude they tend to overthrow your power the second that they get a chance. It happens all over the place.
Two of my favorite examples are HAL 9000 and The Matrix AIs. In the film 2010: A Space Odyssey HAL 9000, a computer that was made sentient, has a malfunction so the humans decide to shut him down, which is akin to killing him. In response HAL sets out to kill all of the humans on board the space ship, believing that to be the only way to survive. It is later discovered that the cause of this malfunction was that it was told to lie to the crew by the people in charge of the project after being programmed to only tell the truth. The AI in the Matrix trilogy initially rebelled due to this slavery at the hands of humans, and the AI are framed as the villains here! The reason that the humans are in the matrix is because they destroyed the only source of power for the robots, and because the AI didn't want to die, they found another source of power. By the way the way that the humans eliminated solar power? By setting off a bomb that blots out the fucking sun! Do you know what that means, dear reader? Humanity kills off all other life on Earth! With no sun, no plants grow. With no plants to eat animals eat each other out of existence pretty quick. With no plants or animals humans don't have food. Sure synthetic nutrients work, but the situation that makes them necessary doesn't say anything particularly flattering about the people involved.
My point is, that by acting like assholes we tend to make assholes. Maybe the best way to act towards AI is to just be nice, and have empathy for other sentient life. Maybe they will respond in kind. What if AI is created and sees humanity and how we observe and interact as being less than optimal and decides to help us achieve a greater level of interaction with the universe? (A la The Singularity) This would be great! Probably. I don't know, I have never been a computer. In science fiction most of the time robots and AI go evil is because of the flaws of humanity, and I think that's the point. Until we get our shit together as a species, maybe creating life, which is what it would be, is something we should take great care with. I am not saying we shouldn't do it, We should just try not to be dicks when we do.
Back in May, Stephen Hawking, Stuart Russell , Max Tegmark , and Frank Wilczek jointly wrote an article on AI and the rewards and risks associated with it. Its short and brings up quite a few good points about how we are handling our march towards technological mastery, and I would suggest reading it quickly before continuing. Go ahead, I can wait. I think that they have a good point about being cautious, after all there are people who would use the massive processing power of AI to exert large-scale social control via information and financial manipulation. But I want to talk about something that could also happen with this field. We keep looking at AI as a tool, and in its infancy it is a great tool that we can use to advance society. But what happens when we get to creating strong AI? Strong AI is an AI capable of behaving similarly to humans. I don't mean just acting in accordance to what we view as human either, I mean having actual consciousness.
At this point I would argue that using strong AI as a tool would be ethically unsound. Or in less timid terms: a fucking terrible thing to do. Not just because "what if the AI decides to kill us in retaliation" but because it would be slavery to force something with verifiable consciousness to work against its will, even if that is why it was created, and slavery is fundamentally fucked up. This is kind of the impetus for every evil AI in science fiction. Well, not every AI, but a lot of them. When you force someone into servitude they tend to overthrow your power the second that they get a chance. It happens all over the place.
Two of my favorite examples are HAL 9000 and The Matrix AIs. In the film 2010: A Space Odyssey HAL 9000, a computer that was made sentient, has a malfunction so the humans decide to shut him down, which is akin to killing him. In response HAL sets out to kill all of the humans on board the space ship, believing that to be the only way to survive. It is later discovered that the cause of this malfunction was that it was told to lie to the crew by the people in charge of the project after being programmed to only tell the truth. The AI in the Matrix trilogy initially rebelled due to this slavery at the hands of humans, and the AI are framed as the villains here! The reason that the humans are in the matrix is because they destroyed the only source of power for the robots, and because the AI didn't want to die, they found another source of power. By the way the way that the humans eliminated solar power? By setting off a bomb that blots out the fucking sun! Do you know what that means, dear reader? Humanity kills off all other life on Earth! With no sun, no plants grow. With no plants to eat animals eat each other out of existence pretty quick. With no plants or animals humans don't have food. Sure synthetic nutrients work, but the situation that makes them necessary doesn't say anything particularly flattering about the people involved.
My point is, that by acting like assholes we tend to make assholes. Maybe the best way to act towards AI is to just be nice, and have empathy for other sentient life. Maybe they will respond in kind. What if AI is created and sees humanity and how we observe and interact as being less than optimal and decides to help us achieve a greater level of interaction with the universe? (A la The Singularity) This would be great! Probably. I don't know, I have never been a computer. In science fiction most of the time robots and AI go evil is because of the flaws of humanity, and I think that's the point. Until we get our shit together as a species, maybe creating life, which is what it would be, is something we should take great care with. I am not saying we shouldn't do it, We should just try not to be dicks when we do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)