So, I feel the need to clarify an argument I've been seeing a great deal of lately. I'm referring to the whole "obesity" discussion. There has been quite a fucking row going on for a decade or so now to determine whether or not to really accept fat people into mainstream culture. This has led to heated debates about the health of the fat "lifestyle", the public impact of fattitude, so forth and so on ad nauseam. It seems to me this is a false premise. Its none of your fucking business.
I will admit outright, I'm a tubby fucker. I'm not proud of it, I'm not really ashamed of it these days, its just how shit is. This is the case for numerous reasons; I enjoy the social, cultural, chemical, and Epicurean components and impacts of food. Cooking is not just pretty much the only thing I've been meaningfully praised for, its associated with pretty much every positive experience in my life. My wife and I started falling in love over meals that I cooked. The first time, and nearly every other time, I can remember my father praising me was for my work in the kitchen. And frankly I'd much rather die at 40 with a bellyful of delicious food shared with loved ones than at 90 having been fed through a tube in my nose for a month or two. I've seen people die of old age, its fucking horrifying. Give me half an hour and a heart attack over six months of prolonged brain death any fucking day. All of those things are grand for me, and that's it. For me. It doesn't fucking involve you.
On the health argument, yes being fat is unhealthy. But its not fucking contagious, me being fat isn't going to give you diabetes. So fuck you; its my meatpuppet, I'll pull the fucking strings. I've heard the whole, "oh, but all the health insurance costs" bullshit and it is just that. Bullshit. If your argument is that all the other people being fat is making your insurance cost more, that's a problem with the whole insurance/health industry more than it is with people being fat, capitalism has a nasty effect on basic shit like healthcare. If you feel as though that structural failing gives you a right to make other people's bodies into a public health issue, you are incorrect. If christian scientists spat the kind of vitriol at cancer patients that the militant "healthy" people do at fat people we'd label them monsters and feel better about ourselves for being better than them. Now, the scale is different but the base argument is the same, "you have a condition that may or may not have been preventable, that I do not fully understand, and I am going oppress you because I feel it is easily remedied."
On the aesthetic, this is simple, if you don't think fat people are
attractive do not fuck them. That's fine, no one would give you shit for
not wanting to put your mouth on some crispy hobo junk. Just don't be a
dick because you find them unsexy. Because if their worth to you is
solely determined on your willingness to put your parts on theirs you
are a piece of shit. In the same way that anyone who abuses others to
feel better is a piece of shit. If a fat person gives you shit for
politely not wanting to fuck them, well that person sucks, good for you
not fucking that shithead. But that's it.
I find that one of the biggest groups (no pun intended) of people who grumble about how much fat people suck are people who at least claim to have previously been fat. I put it that way because so much of this discussion happens in the Tubes and personal claims are only limited by character limits online. There's a great deal of talk about prioritizing your health from these people, but what if I don't? I know that some day I will die and that, realistically, my ability to extend that date is modified by too many random factors for me to reliably manipulate. So rather than prioritize health I prioritize bringing joy to my life and the lives around me. I know, I'm such a fat, worthless, piece of shit right?
As far as anyone knows for sure we only get the one go around here, and its pretty fucking shitty to try and deny someone what makes them happy just because you can. Everything in life has consequences, positive and negative. Might as well admit that bad shit could happen and just try to enjoy the ride.
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ethics. Show all posts
Monday, September 28, 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 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, 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 13, 2015
In Which My Philosophy Digs Me a Hole
Alright, I've written about this kind of thing before but I feel like it needs to be discussed in more general terms. The more power you accumulate, in literally any measure of power, the less freedom you have. See that dot to the right there? That's a period.
Now I'm going to put away my asshole hat and explain. If you are reading this you live in a fucking society. If you live in a society you are beholden, in one way or another, to other people in the society. Be it for your food or the electricity that powers your shit or just goddamn human contact, you owe. Now its very easy to go about this as some kind of absurdly complex system of poorly metered debt, but that would be fucking stupid. The better method of interacting as a society is a perpetual effort to pay it forward, to make society as a whole a better place. The greater your personal success, and thus the more resources you've tapped in order to succeed, the more you can and should do to improve society. Not by some circuitous bullshit pseudoeconomics, personally, like you actually give a shit.
Here's where things get a little weird. For some people forgoing selfish bullshit because its shitty and idiotic isn't enough, so there's more. If you accumulate power and fail to utilize your assets to benefit society, society has a responsibility to take your fucking power away. We are individuals and that's important to remember, but we are all in this together whether we like it or not. Having someone accumulate power without making an effort to actively, directly improve the quality of life around them is exploitative to all of us.
In this country especially this has been a discussion made in bad faith. There is a great deal of talk of the inevitability of social good arising from personal freedom. Which would be great if there wasn't a predisposition towards being a cunt. Not everyone has it, but enough people have it that just assuming that successful people aren't going to be shitty is willfully self-destructive. To simultaneously massacre two goodhearted maxims, whatever gets you off, as long as you don't fuck anybody over. Power is a form of freedom and freedom must be tempered by responsibility or it is monstrous, and dealing with monsters is a terminal endeavor for at least one party.
Now I'm going to put away my asshole hat and explain. If you are reading this you live in a fucking society. If you live in a society you are beholden, in one way or another, to other people in the society. Be it for your food or the electricity that powers your shit or just goddamn human contact, you owe. Now its very easy to go about this as some kind of absurdly complex system of poorly metered debt, but that would be fucking stupid. The better method of interacting as a society is a perpetual effort to pay it forward, to make society as a whole a better place. The greater your personal success, and thus the more resources you've tapped in order to succeed, the more you can and should do to improve society. Not by some circuitous bullshit pseudoeconomics, personally, like you actually give a shit.
Here's where things get a little weird. For some people forgoing selfish bullshit because its shitty and idiotic isn't enough, so there's more. If you accumulate power and fail to utilize your assets to benefit society, society has a responsibility to take your fucking power away. We are individuals and that's important to remember, but we are all in this together whether we like it or not. Having someone accumulate power without making an effort to actively, directly improve the quality of life around them is exploitative to all of us.
In this country especially this has been a discussion made in bad faith. There is a great deal of talk of the inevitability of social good arising from personal freedom. Which would be great if there wasn't a predisposition towards being a cunt. Not everyone has it, but enough people have it that just assuming that successful people aren't going to be shitty is willfully self-destructive. To simultaneously massacre two goodhearted maxims, whatever gets you off, as long as you don't fuck anybody over. Power is a form of freedom and freedom must be tempered by responsibility or it is monstrous, and dealing with monsters is a terminal endeavor for at least one party.
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, January 5, 2015
Children in Africa are the Primary Determinants of the Price of Beans
So, here's the thing, I'm going to try not to flip out about this so bear with me. People who bitch about how their life isn't blowjobs and free booze are fucking idiots. It sucks that your phone can't take on an SUV and then load up what ever bullshit app draws your fancy. It is not a tragedy, it is not a miscarriage of justice. People who complain about social injustice and first world oppression are not those people.
This particular rant has been building for a while so I will try to stay focused. I will admit that there are things worthy of the ignominy of the title of "first world problems". Nearly anything relating, with the noted exception of matters of cyber security, to whatever gadget happens to be shining up pop culture, be it 'phone, 'pad, or 'tooth, is a bullshit problem. I think on some level we all comprehend this. Really, any time the person complaining could intelligibly insert the phrase, "don't you know who I am" and not break the flow of the complaint we're talking about a bullshit problem. Ditto with any situation where the person bitching feels comfortable tapping social/political/monetary status as leverage, and any time someone mistakes a luxury for a right. Those who fall into this pit of indulgence and entitlement are barely even people, at best they're children bitching about their birthday presents.
That said, discussing actual, meaningful concerns and abuses is always pertinent. Someone fearing rape or abuse for discussing rape or abuse is never okay, no matter what else is going on in the world. Note, I linked that whole sentence but I could quite easily have linked every fucking word to a different story, no single one more than five years old. The problems of racism, sexism, oppression and corruption in the first world are in no fucking way mitigated by atrocities and injustice in other parts of the world. This seems to be a problem of flawed comparison, but its important to keep in mind that the fact that there are places in this world where representatives of the local government can go a-full on-viking in civilian communities doesn't make the insidious othering and knee-jerk, reactionary defensiveness of American police better. Its like the terrible high school girl who surrounds herself with less attractive people to make herself look better. She isn't making herself less of a horrible person, isn't actually improving her appearance, just lowering the local average to make herself seem more worthwhile. Knowledge of the fact that there are children fighting and starving in Africa doesn't reduce the tragedy of children who work themselves to ruin in American tobacco farms.
I'm starting to run the risk of spitting bile on this so I will just finish up by paraphrasing my least favorite mythology, maybe take care of your own shit before you start trying to solve problems halfway around the fucking world.
This particular rant has been building for a while so I will try to stay focused. I will admit that there are things worthy of the ignominy of the title of "first world problems". Nearly anything relating, with the noted exception of matters of cyber security, to whatever gadget happens to be shining up pop culture, be it 'phone, 'pad, or 'tooth, is a bullshit problem. I think on some level we all comprehend this. Really, any time the person complaining could intelligibly insert the phrase, "don't you know who I am" and not break the flow of the complaint we're talking about a bullshit problem. Ditto with any situation where the person bitching feels comfortable tapping social/political/monetary status as leverage, and any time someone mistakes a luxury for a right. Those who fall into this pit of indulgence and entitlement are barely even people, at best they're children bitching about their birthday presents.
That said, discussing actual, meaningful concerns and abuses is always pertinent. Someone fearing rape or abuse for discussing rape or abuse is never okay, no matter what else is going on in the world. Note, I linked that whole sentence but I could quite easily have linked every fucking word to a different story, no single one more than five years old. The problems of racism, sexism, oppression and corruption in the first world are in no fucking way mitigated by atrocities and injustice in other parts of the world. This seems to be a problem of flawed comparison, but its important to keep in mind that the fact that there are places in this world where representatives of the local government can go a-full on-viking in civilian communities doesn't make the insidious othering and knee-jerk, reactionary defensiveness of American police better. Its like the terrible high school girl who surrounds herself with less attractive people to make herself look better. She isn't making herself less of a horrible person, isn't actually improving her appearance, just lowering the local average to make herself seem more worthwhile. Knowledge of the fact that there are children fighting and starving in Africa doesn't reduce the tragedy of children who work themselves to ruin in American tobacco farms.
I'm starting to run the risk of spitting bile on this so I will just finish up by paraphrasing my least favorite mythology, maybe take care of your own shit before you start trying to solve problems halfway around the fucking world.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Jesus Christ Not Again
So, ugh, we've talked about shitty police stuff before. I can't describe how much I want to not have to do this, but I can't help it at this point. I've been trying to hold my tongue for a while here, hoping it would get better, but my hopes are often vain and counter to the impulses of human nature. So I'm just going to say it.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
If you choose (and in our culture it is fucking always a choice) to go into law enforcement you need to understand that you aren't a person while you're wearing your uniform. Police officers are servants, says it right there in the oft repeated, usually disregarded motto, protect and serve. Any system of policing that values the safety and comfort of officers over the safety of absolutely all civilians, criminal and casual observer alike, is despotism. You went into a field where a certain (astronomically low) percentage of the population feels the need to kill you, don't fucking antagonize people. The role of a police force is to protect the populace and ensure that those who commit crimes against that populace are processed by the legal system arbitrated by the society. It is absolutely fucking never okay for a police officer to kill. It doesn't matter if your life is in jeopardy. It doesn't matter if you feel entitled or justified. You are not a person. You, as a police officer, are a construct manifested by our society to make sure that due process is maintained. Any law that protects you above a citizen is tyrannic, and system that allows you to kill is, at best, catastrophically unjust. Police officers are representatives of justice, as the society they serve defines it. No extra privileges, no special treatment. They are mechanisms as long as they are acting in an official capacity, and civilians the second they aren't.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Seasonal Disa-fuckthis Disorder
I loathe people this time of year. Its not entirely a christmas thing or a holiday thing, or even a rabid consumerism thing, though my issue is related. I hate people in the winter because american culture apparently demands that, what is for me, the most beautiful, comfortable, and peaceful time of year has to be fucking terrible.
Between the narcissistic, masturbatory rage of the evangelicals bitching about how their monopoly on a season is slipping, to the tragic slide of joyous celebrations into vile obligations as progressively more distant and abusive families bludgeon each other with politics and forced proximity, society fails this season completely.
Additionally, this season means enough cooking to rival the feast of Tantalus, and though I love to cook, it means that I have neither the patience nor the inclination to write more on this subject than this. So I'll just say that if its cold outside and you're an asshole, fuck you. Viciously. With the pointiest, most horrific, seasonally appropriate prop you can find.
Between the narcissistic, masturbatory rage of the evangelicals bitching about how their monopoly on a season is slipping, to the tragic slide of joyous celebrations into vile obligations as progressively more distant and abusive families bludgeon each other with politics and forced proximity, society fails this season completely.
Additionally, this season means enough cooking to rival the feast of Tantalus, and though I love to cook, it means that I have neither the patience nor the inclination to write more on this subject than this. So I'll just say that if its cold outside and you're an asshole, fuck you. Viciously. With the pointiest, most horrific, seasonally appropriate prop you can find.
Friday, December 12, 2014
We Can Be Heroes
I am feeling kind of crappy so this will be a shortish post, but I would like to talk about hero worship. Its something that happens a lot when a person becomes famous for doing something great. We put them on a pedestal because we like what they did and after a while we tend to forget that they were people too.
Its not bad to have heroes. To aspire to do great things, and look to others for inspiration, is a great way to go about your life. The bad part is when people attempt to use heroes as a symbol. This does a couple of things that harms them/the people who follow them. First, it dehumanizes them, which not only fucks up living heroes, but also turns people who did great things into inviolate paragons. It might not change the good things they did, but its important to remember that Gandhi liked giving little girls enemas. Its important to remember that for all the spiritual significance assigned to her, Mother Teresa allowed and encouraged ailing people to slowly die in agony in dark rooms of her design. Not saying they didn't do great things, but context matters. My second point is along the lines of the first point but it is focused on the people who perceive them. Turning people into symbols makes them seem superhuman, which is harmful to people who look up to them because they make progress seem impossible. If you work for a long time and don't see much progress it can be disheartening, and looking at people who achieved something can inspire you, but it can also make you feel as if you aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile.
All the people in history that have ever done anything good have all stumbled along the way. Einstein didn't sprout forth from the womb fully formed and having created the theory of relativity. There was a long process, some of which involved fucking his cousin. Really, any time you compare your work to other people's accomplishments, it can make you feel bad, but people who are heroes are the worst in that regard, because its clearly not just your own perspective that they are good at what they did. Everyone agrees that Martin Luther King Jr. is the best, and wow, you are totally not as accomplished as him. You suck.
All I can say is, look up to people but keep in mind that neither they, nor you, are perfect. Take your time, do the work, and you will succeed at whatever you are working on.
Its not bad to have heroes. To aspire to do great things, and look to others for inspiration, is a great way to go about your life. The bad part is when people attempt to use heroes as a symbol. This does a couple of things that harms them/the people who follow them. First, it dehumanizes them, which not only fucks up living heroes, but also turns people who did great things into inviolate paragons. It might not change the good things they did, but its important to remember that Gandhi liked giving little girls enemas. Its important to remember that for all the spiritual significance assigned to her, Mother Teresa allowed and encouraged ailing people to slowly die in agony in dark rooms of her design. Not saying they didn't do great things, but context matters. My second point is along the lines of the first point but it is focused on the people who perceive them. Turning people into symbols makes them seem superhuman, which is harmful to people who look up to them because they make progress seem impossible. If you work for a long time and don't see much progress it can be disheartening, and looking at people who achieved something can inspire you, but it can also make you feel as if you aren't accomplishing anything worthwhile.
All the people in history that have ever done anything good have all stumbled along the way. Einstein didn't sprout forth from the womb fully formed and having created the theory of relativity. There was a long process, some of which involved fucking his cousin. Really, any time you compare your work to other people's accomplishments, it can make you feel bad, but people who are heroes are the worst in that regard, because its clearly not just your own perspective that they are good at what they did. Everyone agrees that Martin Luther King Jr. is the best, and wow, you are totally not as accomplished as him. You suck.
All I can say is, look up to people but keep in mind that neither they, nor you, are perfect. Take your time, do the work, and you will succeed at whatever you are working on.
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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Psychic convention cancled due to unforseen circumstances
I hate charlatans. Specifically the ones who claim to have some sort of supernatural power, talking to the dead or reading minds. These people are the worst. At best they bilk people out of a few dollars at a carnival, at worst they defraud bereaved people in the most ham fisted way possible.
They make shit tons of money doing it too. Ed and Lorraine Warren, famous for the parts the played in the supposed real life events depicted in the movies "Amittyville Horror" and "The Conjuring". "The Conjuring" made $318 million from a $20 million budget, making it one of the highest grossing horror films of all time. This couple was also accused by two of the children from the Amittyvile Horror case of telling the Amittyvile family that they would become millionaires when the film rights sold if they helped play up the demon possession angle (also investigators found multiple holes in the case).
John Edward charges $150 a ticket for the cheap seats and up to $850 for a private reading. When I checked his website most of his shows for the next few months are sold out. He was caught using "hot reading", which uses knowledge gained prior to the official reading and passes it off as gained from another method, during a dateline NBC interview. Basically he defrauds grieving people looking for closure for personal gain, which has earned him the title the biggest douche in the universe.
Uri Geller was a psychic in the 70s that used spoon bending as "proof" of his power. He has published several books most of which have sold a decent amount of copies. This became a wildly popular phenomenon that is considered by many to be proof of psychic powers. The problem is that his spoon bending has been recreated by stage magicians, and thus might just be a fraud. When he went on the British TV show "Noel's House Party" he was seen to have bent the spoon with his hands at two times. But then again, he never said he didn't use his hands.
These charlatans prey upon the weaknesses of others to make a quick buck but also cause another problem. What if there are actually psychics out there? I don't think that there are, but what if. These frauds make that person less likely to "come out" as it where because they might be called crazy or a fraud just on the face of it. This is especially true when it comes to how we test for ESP or other poorly understood/ "paranormal" phenomena. A recent study at Harvard showed that there is no evidence of anything out of the ordinary when using neuroimaging on subjects taking tests to see if they have any ESP ability. This test seems good but it bases itself on the assumption that ESP is a brain based effect, but to be fair that is a very logical assumption. What if we don't have the tools yet to test this thoroughly enough to discount ESP as a possibility? What if ESP has nothing to do with the brain? What if the subjects have no ESP ability?
I am not saying that ESP exists. I don't tend to believe in paranormal stuff, but I think not investigating it fully (or at all because "they are all frauds" ) might be a misstep. I bring up the charlatan thing because while they are causing plenty of harm just on the surface they are also creating tons of evidence for people to just disregard the abnormal wholesale, and I think that this is short sighted. I don't think we have adequate tools yet to test the theory (I believe that the Harvard study takes us in the right direction on that front by the way despite my poking at it earlier). Basically, keep an open mind, just don't open your mind to much or your brain will fall out.
They make shit tons of money doing it too. Ed and Lorraine Warren, famous for the parts the played in the supposed real life events depicted in the movies "Amittyville Horror" and "The Conjuring". "The Conjuring" made $318 million from a $20 million budget, making it one of the highest grossing horror films of all time. This couple was also accused by two of the children from the Amittyvile Horror case of telling the Amittyvile family that they would become millionaires when the film rights sold if they helped play up the demon possession angle (also investigators found multiple holes in the case).
John Edward charges $150 a ticket for the cheap seats and up to $850 for a private reading. When I checked his website most of his shows for the next few months are sold out. He was caught using "hot reading", which uses knowledge gained prior to the official reading and passes it off as gained from another method, during a dateline NBC interview. Basically he defrauds grieving people looking for closure for personal gain, which has earned him the title the biggest douche in the universe.
Uri Geller was a psychic in the 70s that used spoon bending as "proof" of his power. He has published several books most of which have sold a decent amount of copies. This became a wildly popular phenomenon that is considered by many to be proof of psychic powers. The problem is that his spoon bending has been recreated by stage magicians, and thus might just be a fraud. When he went on the British TV show "Noel's House Party" he was seen to have bent the spoon with his hands at two times. But then again, he never said he didn't use his hands.
These charlatans prey upon the weaknesses of others to make a quick buck but also cause another problem. What if there are actually psychics out there? I don't think that there are, but what if. These frauds make that person less likely to "come out" as it where because they might be called crazy or a fraud just on the face of it. This is especially true when it comes to how we test for ESP or other poorly understood/ "paranormal" phenomena. A recent study at Harvard showed that there is no evidence of anything out of the ordinary when using neuroimaging on subjects taking tests to see if they have any ESP ability. This test seems good but it bases itself on the assumption that ESP is a brain based effect, but to be fair that is a very logical assumption. What if we don't have the tools yet to test this thoroughly enough to discount ESP as a possibility? What if ESP has nothing to do with the brain? What if the subjects have no ESP ability?
I am not saying that ESP exists. I don't tend to believe in paranormal stuff, but I think not investigating it fully (or at all because "they are all frauds" ) might be a misstep. I bring up the charlatan thing because while they are causing plenty of harm just on the surface they are also creating tons of evidence for people to just disregard the abnormal wholesale, and I think that this is short sighted. I don't think we have adequate tools yet to test the theory (I believe that the Harvard study takes us in the right direction on that front by the way despite my poking at it earlier). Basically, keep an open mind, just don't open your mind to much or your brain will fall out.
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"
Friday, September 5, 2014
For Great Justice
You know whats cool about being a cop? You can break the law and get away with it because, hey, you are the law! Did I say cool? Sorry, I didn't mean cool, I meant fucking stupid. Seriously, what the hell guys? I feel like I need to say this now: I don't hate cops. I think that they preform a necessary and valuable service for the people. I also know that there have been cases in which cops have broken the law and have gone to jail. But when all is said and done the fact that there has been no punishment for police who have committed crimes in any case at all, is something that I cannot abide.
The story that made me want to write about this is the policeman who killed the former COO of napster because he was texting while driving. The excuse they gave was that he was in the middle of texting a reply to another officer asking a work related question. This is bullshit. Do you know why texting while driving is illegal in the majority of states? Because shit like that happens! People die because someone didn't want to wait/pull over to send a message. The police are supposed to be paragons of justice in our country, hell, in most of the world. These are not supposed to be people in uniforms "just doing their jobs". They are the people we let guard our streets and uphold the rule of law. They are supposed to be the best of us. As Eshi has said, "We outsource our self-defense to these people at the most vital times". They are the ones that we chose to let represent our social Ideals. This means that they must be held to a higher standard of accountability then your normal everyman on the street.
A couple of the news stories I linked to earlier could have been considered accidents and not intentional crimes. That sucks and its super unfortunate for everyone involved, but you still killed a person. I know you don't want to be punished for something you didn't mean to do, but all actions have consequences and you have to live with them, especially if you are the one who is supposed to hold people accountable in the first place.
Really anytime a person has power that can impact people around them, they lose some of their freedom to act in anyway they like. When you have power over people if you fuck up, you hurt all of the people effected by you. You have to bear the responsibility of your actions. I believe that this is especially true if you are an elected official and you break the law. You don't get the minimum sentence or just paying a fine because you are important. No, you get jail time motherfucker. Did you cheat on your significant other, and then proceed to tell people who can and can't get married based on a moral code you possess? Nope, you get publicly fired. You don't get to resign gracefully. We elect people to represent us, and as such they should always act in a way that corresponds to that trust. You don't get to make mistakes. I get that your job is hard and sometimes you make mistakes, but those mistakes cost too much for you to ever get a pass.
The story that made me want to write about this is the policeman who killed the former COO of napster because he was texting while driving. The excuse they gave was that he was in the middle of texting a reply to another officer asking a work related question. This is bullshit. Do you know why texting while driving is illegal in the majority of states? Because shit like that happens! People die because someone didn't want to wait/pull over to send a message. The police are supposed to be paragons of justice in our country, hell, in most of the world. These are not supposed to be people in uniforms "just doing their jobs". They are the people we let guard our streets and uphold the rule of law. They are supposed to be the best of us. As Eshi has said, "We outsource our self-defense to these people at the most vital times". They are the ones that we chose to let represent our social Ideals. This means that they must be held to a higher standard of accountability then your normal everyman on the street.
A couple of the news stories I linked to earlier could have been considered accidents and not intentional crimes. That sucks and its super unfortunate for everyone involved, but you still killed a person. I know you don't want to be punished for something you didn't mean to do, but all actions have consequences and you have to live with them, especially if you are the one who is supposed to hold people accountable in the first place.
Really anytime a person has power that can impact people around them, they lose some of their freedom to act in anyway they like. When you have power over people if you fuck up, you hurt all of the people effected by you. You have to bear the responsibility of your actions. I believe that this is especially true if you are an elected official and you break the law. You don't get the minimum sentence or just paying a fine because you are important. No, you get jail time motherfucker. Did you cheat on your significant other, and then proceed to tell people who can and can't get married based on a moral code you possess? Nope, you get publicly fired. You don't get to resign gracefully. We elect people to represent us, and as such they should always act in a way that corresponds to that trust. You don't get to make mistakes. I get that your job is hard and sometimes you make mistakes, but those mistakes cost too much for you to ever get a pass.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Ferris Bueller You're My Heeeeerrooooo
So here's a tricky bitch. The only thing that can make a hero is actual heroism. I know that sounds like a pretty obvious thing but apparently it's difficult for some people. Anyone who goes beyond the realm of reasonable expectation to save another person is heroic. Be they cop, fireman, civilian or solder. Now here's where that gets tricky. When saving people from harm is your job you really only deserve the hero title for going way above and beyond.
That last bit is pretty important. I'm not saying that the fireman who runs headlong into a collapsing building to save someone isn't a hero. I'm not saying the cop who manages to deescalate a tense, possibly terminal, dispute isn't heroic. I am saying that just being a cop, fireman, solder, doctor, or (insert your favorite hero job here) does not fucking make you a hero.
The first point that I feel needs to be made on this front is that all of those things are, at their core, occupations. Now an occupation is something you do, in our society, for compensation in the form of monetary recognition. If nothing else this means that, well, its their fucking job. The fact that their job is hard or potentially dangerous isn't enough to warrant exceptional respect. Heroism requires a degree of exceptional behavior, by definition if you do something for a living there's nothing exceptional about it. Now, if someone from one of these fields helps you personally, sure give 'em a pat on the back and a hearty thank you. But pursuing a career doesn't entitle you to special fucking treatment.
Now, I came to this conclusion (trying as hard as I can not to be a bitter, hateful bastard) for one very simple reason. There is no real way to ensure that someone goes into a line of work for the "right" reasons. Since in this instance that right reason is a desire to help people its an important distinction to make. The fact that a relatively capable sociopath or passingly convincing martyr complex can find their way into the "heroic" vocations necessarily removes the intrinsic heroism of the job.
Its unfortunate, but these things need to play a bigger role in how we think about our society. The term, "hero" comes with some pretty heady perks and if we're just handing it out to anyone willing to go through the right training program its inevitable that the kind of people who will abuse those perks will find their way into those programs.
That last bit is pretty important. I'm not saying that the fireman who runs headlong into a collapsing building to save someone isn't a hero. I'm not saying the cop who manages to deescalate a tense, possibly terminal, dispute isn't heroic. I am saying that just being a cop, fireman, solder, doctor, or (insert your favorite hero job here) does not fucking make you a hero.
The first point that I feel needs to be made on this front is that all of those things are, at their core, occupations. Now an occupation is something you do, in our society, for compensation in the form of monetary recognition. If nothing else this means that, well, its their fucking job. The fact that their job is hard or potentially dangerous isn't enough to warrant exceptional respect. Heroism requires a degree of exceptional behavior, by definition if you do something for a living there's nothing exceptional about it. Now, if someone from one of these fields helps you personally, sure give 'em a pat on the back and a hearty thank you. But pursuing a career doesn't entitle you to special fucking treatment.
Now, I came to this conclusion (trying as hard as I can not to be a bitter, hateful bastard) for one very simple reason. There is no real way to ensure that someone goes into a line of work for the "right" reasons. Since in this instance that right reason is a desire to help people its an important distinction to make. The fact that a relatively capable sociopath or passingly convincing martyr complex can find their way into the "heroic" vocations necessarily removes the intrinsic heroism of the job.
Its unfortunate, but these things need to play a bigger role in how we think about our society. The term, "hero" comes with some pretty heady perks and if we're just handing it out to anyone willing to go through the right training program its inevitable that the kind of people who will abuse those perks will find their way into those programs.
Thursday, August 21, 2014
What'd that Horse Ever do to You?
I have a bit of history with philosophy, Brian and I both do, philosophy is fucking awesome. Unfortunately the benefits of thinking deeply tend to only occur to those that have made an effort at it. The primary fields of philosophy considered most relevant to the real world are Ethics and Morality. Ethics is at its core the examination of The Social Good, codifying behavior on a large scale for the benefit of those present in the given society. Morality, on the other hand is an intrinsically subjective consideration of personal constructs of "good" and "bad".
The problem that catches me, and pretty much everyone else (whether they realize it or not), is the tendency to conflate the two. Not just conflating them but doing so with a painfully fucking egotistical preference towards morality. Now, I get it; everyone wants to think they have a monopoly on not being a dick, but it runs us into a shitty, postmodern clusterfuck. Morality is great; have some, by all means, but framing ethics on morality isn't just putting the cart before the horse, its killing the horse and declaring it heresy to move the cart.
Its actually a pretty easy distinction to make between the two. Morality comes down to how you feel about taking an action. If you don't like it, or don't feel like the likely consequences are worth it, don't fucking do it. Simple. Ethics establishes itself upon social good and that's where people tend to get turned around. If an action doesn't result in the direct physical or psychological harm of anyone who isn't an informed, actively consenting participant, ethics; and therefore law, has no right to interfere. Ethics doesn't, and in fact can't, concern itself with that kind of action because if it isn't negatively effecting people who aren't involved it isn't effecting society. My favorite example of this distinction is gay rights. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality as an individual, the simple fact that some people fuck in ways that make you feel ookie has nothing to do with those people. If thinking about homosexuals fucking bugs you, that's your fucking problem, not their's. Stop fucking thinking about it.
Now if a person who happened to be gay engaged in the kind of ridiculous bullshit they tend to be accused of by the idiot fringe, and any of that behavior happened to include someone who was either incapable of or not giving full, informed consent yes; that's fucking unacceptable and we can discuss how law should engage only those who harm others in such a way. That last bit is the key. We can't preemptively legislate against any action that doesn't intrinsically cause harm to those willing to enter into it, and we can't legislate against any group for the actions of one of its constituents. Fucking period.
The problem that catches me, and pretty much everyone else (whether they realize it or not), is the tendency to conflate the two. Not just conflating them but doing so with a painfully fucking egotistical preference towards morality. Now, I get it; everyone wants to think they have a monopoly on not being a dick, but it runs us into a shitty, postmodern clusterfuck. Morality is great; have some, by all means, but framing ethics on morality isn't just putting the cart before the horse, its killing the horse and declaring it heresy to move the cart.
Its actually a pretty easy distinction to make between the two. Morality comes down to how you feel about taking an action. If you don't like it, or don't feel like the likely consequences are worth it, don't fucking do it. Simple. Ethics establishes itself upon social good and that's where people tend to get turned around. If an action doesn't result in the direct physical or psychological harm of anyone who isn't an informed, actively consenting participant, ethics; and therefore law, has no right to interfere. Ethics doesn't, and in fact can't, concern itself with that kind of action because if it isn't negatively effecting people who aren't involved it isn't effecting society. My favorite example of this distinction is gay rights. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality as an individual, the simple fact that some people fuck in ways that make you feel ookie has nothing to do with those people. If thinking about homosexuals fucking bugs you, that's your fucking problem, not their's. Stop fucking thinking about it.
Now if a person who happened to be gay engaged in the kind of ridiculous bullshit they tend to be accused of by the idiot fringe, and any of that behavior happened to include someone who was either incapable of or not giving full, informed consent yes; that's fucking unacceptable and we can discuss how law should engage only those who harm others in such a way. That last bit is the key. We can't preemptively legislate against any action that doesn't intrinsically cause harm to those willing to enter into it, and we can't legislate against any group for the actions of one of its constituents. Fucking period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)