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.

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.

Adventures in Capitalism

As Eshi pointed out in his post yesterday, we have had some troubles getting internet in the new place. Before we moved here we had talked to our internet provider and got them to switch our coverage to the new place and we would originally just have been without internet for a couple of days. That's not so bad. We could use the time away to do productive things like unpack and get setup in the new place. When the day came that we were supposed to get internet the guy came from the internet company and told us two things, that they were not here for us, but our neighbor,  that they would be with us the next day, and that they would need to lay cable for us to get internet because the place wasn't wired up for it. Two or three days tops though, annoying, but not a deal breaker. It ended up in the end taking two weeks because they didn't submit the work order and they didn't provide us with any information that we could use to follow up the order with.

I know, I know: First world problems, but it is something that is a symptom of a larger problem. Two weeks without internet kinda sucked, but it wasn't as soul destroying as I thought it would be. The worst part about it was that we had no other choice. Here in Seattle you have basically two choices of internet providers if you don't live in a swanky apartment complex or Condo, Comcast or Century Link. Neither of these companies scores well on yelp, and both have some very shitty policies when it comes to how they treat customers. They are always late to appointments, they charge a lot for services, and they both support anti-net neutrality bills.

We have zero other options.

Capitalism is great on paper. Companies compete, forcing themselves to innovate, charge competitively, and provide good customer service. This is great for the consumer (and for encouraging progress), but kinda crappy for the companies. In this system companies have to spend money on R&D, constantly keep fresh new ideas coming, and the constant competition forces them to constantly reevaluate situations in order for them to survive. Companies fail on a regular basis because they fail the balancing act of how much money to spend to make the most money. This can be stressful, so companies try to do things like completely erase competition in order to not have to do it. When this happens the winner can set prices to whatever they want, stop innovating because there is no need, and treat employees and customers badly because who else are they going to go to? Nobody, that's who. They are the only game in town. This is shitty. Its an example of winning at the expense of others, and as we have discussed before, that's fucking bad.

This is why anti-trust laws exist. They say that people cannot have a monopoly in an industry because its terrible for the economy and more importantly, the people. Competition is healthy because it forces companies to act better towards the countries they reside in and in turn, the consumers who buy from them. Its also illegal for companies to collude and carve out markets for themselves and just not compete with each other, but its hard to prove so companies still do it. A perfect example of this is from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver when talking about Comcast and Time Warner and their collusion. Watch the clip here. Also, if you have not seen the series, watch it. John Oliver is hilarious, and he doesn't need to pull punches like he did on The Daily Show.

Companies try to do whatever they can to eliminate competition and while that is good for them, it fucks people over. The internet business is only one example of where this happens, and this came to light when we decided to try to find internet from another company. We have two to choose from, and they are both terrible. Access to the internet is a human right, according to the UN, but companies can still get away with being shitty when it comes to providing it because there is no real competition. Sure we have two choices, but neither are any good, and because they don't need to compete very hard they don't need to provide a good service.

This stagnation also means that there is no innovation or drive to produce something better. The US is 31st in the world when it comes to internet speeds. 31st! We are behind countries like Estonia, Hungary, Slovakia, Hong Kong, the Czech Republic, and Uruguay. It is also way more expensive here than in any of the countries higher than us in speed. This is all because we don't have a choice in the matter. There are 3-4 major internet companies and they are the only place to get it from. Competition is something that keeps economies from stagnating. I don't know how to fix this problem other than instituting harsher regulations on companies that collude but it is a hard thing to prove in court.

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 Most Charitable Thing I Can Bring Myself to Say About Police

I've been trying very fucking hard to keep my mouth shut about whats been happening in Ferguson the past couple weeks. As Michael Brown's funeral is today and I'm not a complete fucking ogre, I'm going to refuse once more to exploit the agony of his family's loss for the sake of a discussion. My heart goes out to them. I truly hope they find the justice they so clearly deserve.

However, while I have no desire to salt wounds, I have no such compunction against picking scabs.  The systemic abuse of authority is something I must engage.

Authority in general is a bit of a touchy subject to me; both in that I don't have any, and in that its a philosophical minefield. I believe that the right to reasonable self defense is a primary human right. Now, people aren't always reasonable and not everyone is capable of protecting themselves. With this in mind its pretty natural to prevent people just loosing their shit all the time (both literally and figuratively) by outsourcing self defense. These days we call these defenders "police", and the entire impetus for their existence is and needs to be the reasonable defense of the civilian population against anti-social factors. Now, that means that the whole purpose of a police force ought to be peacefully deescalating dangerous situations when possible and utilizing just enough force to detain those who would do active harm to society. This does rather heavily mug my previous post on Ethics in that these actions are meant to ensure justice, i.e. the appropriate punishment of anti-social elements and the rehabilitation of those capable of recovery. Anything other than this is meant to make wronged parties feel better and that is an intrinsically moral issue, if you want to feel better that's all on you.

The unfortunate worm this this particular apple is that most police are just people doing a job. Because of the way we interact with law enforcement (note the different terminology), they are given undue, and often vindictive, protections. It is intrinsically unreasonable to make it a crime to assault an officer; being assaulted is an expected vocational hazard when dealing with the sort of people who tend to require police intervention: the actively violent and the anti-social. Besides there are already laws against assault, making a special law for people who assault cops is ridiculous. It is intrinsically punitive to have laws punishing resisting or avoiding arrest, making laws designed explicitly to add to an initial crime is just beating a dead horse. The fact that a police officer can beat a homeless man to death, or murder a young man in front of his family, or melt a baby with a flash/bang grenade or ever kill someone not actively trying to kill another person, and have any hope of still being a police officer is fucking disgusting and a gross miscarriage of justice.

Unfortunately, it is a core aspect of any kind of authority to maintain and accumulate power. Even the most well-intentioned person, given a degree of command, will seek more power under the auspices of being able to do more good. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying all police are corrupt, or that everyone in a position of power is bad. I am simply saying that being in a position of control tends to encourage one to seek more control. Authority, like a fucked up super solder cocktail, can't help but emphasize preexisting traits, and not one of us is ever really a saint.

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.

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.