No doubt my two readers have noticed that my consistency has been slipping with new posts, and I do apologize for that.
I'm going to be taking a little time off and hopefully re-energizing my desire to write.
In the meantime, if I have anything I really want to write about, I'll do it a la carte as it comes up and I'll continue to post those to Facebook.
-
Wads
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Taking Responsibility
I'm gonna' wing this one since I have a very... small amount of material for this on the top of my mind.
Benghazi.
This has been a bit of an issue recently thanks to the hearing featuring Hillary Clinton. Several senators had plenty of questions for her. Questions revolving around how much of a failure she was- incidentally, she was virtually uninvolved with any meaningful process related to Benghazi.
This is something that's bugged me about people expecting a fall-guy with a recognizable face whenever something bad happens.
A system has some unforeseeable problems thanks to the tangled web of bureaucracy. As a result of an emergency, that tangled web allows for some lowly peon to make a mistake or an error in judgment or assessment. Resulting from this, a few bad things happen.
It's a public debacle.
So what happens? Well, you'd expect the guy who made the mistake to get fired and everyone move on.
But that's not good enough for people. They can't direct their anger towards the peon they've never seen before. They need a scapegoat with a public face, even if that scapegoat is, for all intents and purposes, not related to the incident at all.
In this case, Hillary Clinton.
By virtue of the nature of terrorist attacks, the initial information obtained is typically the first and most basic assessment made by whichever peon sees it first and reports it. All information from thereon is going to be predicated upon that first assessment.
And can we really blame the first guy that much? He made a really typical error- one that most people would make, since no one has normal experience with terrorist attacks. Why would they? That kind of experience is a rarity. Simulating it to be prepared for it isn't easy.
But more than that, why would we blame anyone except the person who made the initial mistake?
(Unless of course, there's someone who made a very negligent mistake that allowed the situation to happen in the first place. In the case of a terrorist attack, that's a little harder to predict or blame though)
The alternate factor here is Libya requesting additional security and whether or not anyone ignored those cables (messages).
Simply put, yes, they requested more security. Months before the attack. Numerous times. Totaling 12 requested security officers
SOURCE
However, the House Oversight Committee (in charge of such appropriations) told them "no." Hillary Clinton should never see these cables because it's not her job.
Despite this, she's taken personal responsibility for the system being slow and awkward and she's vowed to begin fixing it in response to the problem. Instead of, say, blaming it on other people around her and avoiding the problem altogether like many politicians are wont to do.
What I'm getting at here is that personal responsibility is something we should take for our actions and thoughts, but not those that are legitimately out of our control. It's nice of you to apologize for your friend's shitty luck, but ultimately, it's not something you caused or contributed to.
It sucks that your love is unrequited, but you can't blame someone for simply not being romantically interested in you- it's out of their control.
Our thoughts and our actions are what we have control over.
The problems that we cause directly or indirectly are our responsibility- but only that.
I don't really know where I'm going with this.
Take responsibility for what you do.
Don't take responsibility if it's legitimately out of your control or influence.
-
Wad
Benghazi.
This has been a bit of an issue recently thanks to the hearing featuring Hillary Clinton. Several senators had plenty of questions for her. Questions revolving around how much of a failure she was- incidentally, she was virtually uninvolved with any meaningful process related to Benghazi.
This is something that's bugged me about people expecting a fall-guy with a recognizable face whenever something bad happens.
A system has some unforeseeable problems thanks to the tangled web of bureaucracy. As a result of an emergency, that tangled web allows for some lowly peon to make a mistake or an error in judgment or assessment. Resulting from this, a few bad things happen.
It's a public debacle.
So what happens? Well, you'd expect the guy who made the mistake to get fired and everyone move on.
But that's not good enough for people. They can't direct their anger towards the peon they've never seen before. They need a scapegoat with a public face, even if that scapegoat is, for all intents and purposes, not related to the incident at all.
In this case, Hillary Clinton.
By virtue of the nature of terrorist attacks, the initial information obtained is typically the first and most basic assessment made by whichever peon sees it first and reports it. All information from thereon is going to be predicated upon that first assessment.
And can we really blame the first guy that much? He made a really typical error- one that most people would make, since no one has normal experience with terrorist attacks. Why would they? That kind of experience is a rarity. Simulating it to be prepared for it isn't easy.
But more than that, why would we blame anyone except the person who made the initial mistake?
(Unless of course, there's someone who made a very negligent mistake that allowed the situation to happen in the first place. In the case of a terrorist attack, that's a little harder to predict or blame though)
The alternate factor here is Libya requesting additional security and whether or not anyone ignored those cables (messages).
Simply put, yes, they requested more security. Months before the attack. Numerous times. Totaling 12 requested security officers
SOURCE
However, the House Oversight Committee (in charge of such appropriations) told them "no." Hillary Clinton should never see these cables because it's not her job.
Despite this, she's taken personal responsibility for the system being slow and awkward and she's vowed to begin fixing it in response to the problem. Instead of, say, blaming it on other people around her and avoiding the problem altogether like many politicians are wont to do.
What I'm getting at here is that personal responsibility is something we should take for our actions and thoughts, but not those that are legitimately out of our control. It's nice of you to apologize for your friend's shitty luck, but ultimately, it's not something you caused or contributed to.
It sucks that your love is unrequited, but you can't blame someone for simply not being romantically interested in you- it's out of their control.
Our thoughts and our actions are what we have control over.
The problems that we cause directly or indirectly are our responsibility- but only that.
I don't really know where I'm going with this.
Take responsibility for what you do.
Don't take responsibility if it's legitimately out of your control or influence.
-
Wad
Friday, January 25, 2013
Emotions and Arguments
Hokay-
Yesterday I had the pleasure of a lovely "debate" with someone on the merits of the "Appeal to Emotion" fallacy.
For those interested and unaware, standard argumentation has two main kinds of fallacies- formal and informal.
Formal fallacies are those that make an argument structurally nonsensical. For example:
Socrates was smart. Socrates was a human. Therefore, all humans are smart.
Informal fallacies, on the other hand, don't completely destroy an argument the instant they're made, but rather, they diminish the trust one may have in the arguer.
An appeal to authority- "The world is flat. My daddy told me so."
Ad hominem (a personal attack)- "The world is flat because you're an idiot."
Ad populum- "97% of people believe the world is flat, so it is!"
Appeal to emotion- "The world is flat because I'm sad/you're upsetting me."
And so on- Informal fallacies don't technically make you wrong or anything, but they usually make you less trustworthy if you're willing to overuse them.
We use appeals to authority constantly in reference to the authority of our textbooks or our professors or scientists- but that doesn't make us wrong. Informal fallacies are reserved for arguments that you make that have no actual bearing on evidence, whether they're right or wrong.
My textbook might say that the world is flat or round. By trusting in it without using other sources, I'm at least not making the best logical choices.
Now then- with that at least glossed over, the argument in question presented to me was that appeals to emotion are not wrong or bad because humans are emotional creatures and so long as we approach any argument, there will be some emotion behind it.
The premise is a valid point. Humans are always emotional. However, the conclusion was a gross misunderstanding of what an appeal to emotion is. The idea behind informal fallacies being bad is that your sole "evidence" for your argument is that an authority said so, or because you feel it, or because other people agree.
This seems to cause some common misconceptions with argumentation in general.
People often want to divorce themselves from all emotion when arguing. Or, the other extreme- they want to rely on their emotions.
Emotions aren't inherently evil or anything. If you're upset with someone and it's the *reason* you're arguing, that's totally fine. There's nothing wrong at all with having emotions. The problem is when your emotion becomes the reason you're right or the other person is wrong.
"I'm upset. You're not listening to me- you've failed to demonstrate that you understand the position I'm coming from." That's fine.
"You don't understand where I'm coming from because I'm still upset." That's not fine.
A healthy balance where we endeavor to understand how and why we feel the way we do allows us the opportunity to better empathize with someone who may be upsetting us to no fault of their own. Everyone's emotions and emotional responses are unique to them and all too often, we get sucked into how lousy we're feeling without recognizing that it may not be anyone else's fault that we're feeling that way.
This is why human communication is so important. Because we can't understand each others' emotions by default, and most people aren't in touch enough with humanity to be able to accurately judge emotions through conversation unless it's an explicitly discussed topic.
Talk to each other. Don't try to avoid how you feel, but just remember that how you feel has no factual bearing on things that did or did not happen. Your emotions are simply how your mind is knee-jerk responding to events that it perceives have occurred, even if they haven't.
So sit down, shut up, and talk to each other! (Did I say shut up? I meant the opposite of that...)
-
Waddles
Yesterday I had the pleasure of a lovely "debate" with someone on the merits of the "Appeal to Emotion" fallacy.
For those interested and unaware, standard argumentation has two main kinds of fallacies- formal and informal.
Formal fallacies are those that make an argument structurally nonsensical. For example:
Socrates was smart. Socrates was a human. Therefore, all humans are smart.
Informal fallacies, on the other hand, don't completely destroy an argument the instant they're made, but rather, they diminish the trust one may have in the arguer.
An appeal to authority- "The world is flat. My daddy told me so."
Ad hominem (a personal attack)- "The world is flat because you're an idiot."
Ad populum- "97% of people believe the world is flat, so it is!"
Appeal to emotion- "The world is flat because I'm sad/you're upsetting me."
And so on- Informal fallacies don't technically make you wrong or anything, but they usually make you less trustworthy if you're willing to overuse them.
We use appeals to authority constantly in reference to the authority of our textbooks or our professors or scientists- but that doesn't make us wrong. Informal fallacies are reserved for arguments that you make that have no actual bearing on evidence, whether they're right or wrong.
My textbook might say that the world is flat or round. By trusting in it without using other sources, I'm at least not making the best logical choices.
Now then- with that at least glossed over, the argument in question presented to me was that appeals to emotion are not wrong or bad because humans are emotional creatures and so long as we approach any argument, there will be some emotion behind it.
The premise is a valid point. Humans are always emotional. However, the conclusion was a gross misunderstanding of what an appeal to emotion is. The idea behind informal fallacies being bad is that your sole "evidence" for your argument is that an authority said so, or because you feel it, or because other people agree.
This seems to cause some common misconceptions with argumentation in general.
People often want to divorce themselves from all emotion when arguing. Or, the other extreme- they want to rely on their emotions.
Emotions aren't inherently evil or anything. If you're upset with someone and it's the *reason* you're arguing, that's totally fine. There's nothing wrong at all with having emotions. The problem is when your emotion becomes the reason you're right or the other person is wrong.
"I'm upset. You're not listening to me- you've failed to demonstrate that you understand the position I'm coming from." That's fine.
"You don't understand where I'm coming from because I'm still upset." That's not fine.
A healthy balance where we endeavor to understand how and why we feel the way we do allows us the opportunity to better empathize with someone who may be upsetting us to no fault of their own. Everyone's emotions and emotional responses are unique to them and all too often, we get sucked into how lousy we're feeling without recognizing that it may not be anyone else's fault that we're feeling that way.
This is why human communication is so important. Because we can't understand each others' emotions by default, and most people aren't in touch enough with humanity to be able to accurately judge emotions through conversation unless it's an explicitly discussed topic.
Talk to each other. Don't try to avoid how you feel, but just remember that how you feel has no factual bearing on things that did or did not happen. Your emotions are simply how your mind is knee-jerk responding to events that it perceives have occurred, even if they haven't.
So sit down, shut up, and talk to each other! (Did I say shut up? I meant the opposite of that...)
-
Waddles
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Further thoughts on the worth of life
So, guess who forgot that Monday was yesterday.
This guy.
As a result, I present you with Tuesday's blog post.
With Roe V. Wade sitting directly forty years behind us, abortion has been a hot button topic.
Reddit even had the pleasure of hosting workers at an abortion clinic for an AMA (ask me anything- it's a community interview) seen here
I've read many not-so-compelling arguments against abortion and lots of attempts to boil down the argument to its single-value-essence, like "ultimately, the question is when you define life as starting."
I'd like to clarify that there isn't just one of these value-essences- there are several. Off the top of my head:
1. When do you define the beginning of life?
2. Is the freedom of one person more, less, or equally valuable as the rights of a dependent person?
3. Is human life priceless, or can you put a value on it in certain circumstances?
4. Can the price of human life (if it exists) be translated into a currency other than "lives"?
All four of these questions can result in a fundamental position-shift on the topic of abortion depending on how you answer them. The follow-up "why" question after each one also exposes cognitive dissonance and poorly-crafted philosophies.
The first question is an almost entirely arbitrary and subjective question that you can't do anything with. It's impossible to determine a consensus for life's origins because it's such a continuous and nebulous process. In other words, not an argument worth having.
The second question is far more interesting since any answer has serious implications on many other opinions. Dependents come in many forms- children, fetuses, the elderly, the physically/mentally challenged, intended, unintended, forced, etc.
It brings to mind the thought experiment of the Violinist. The meat of the experiment is if you wake up connected to a famous violinist and you're told he'll die if you disconnect yourself from him, do you have any obligation to stay connected to him? He'll be cured in nine months, but you cannot move and you're the only one that can save him. You were not consulted prior to becoming connected and instead, you were kidnapped.
The idea is that if someone is truly dependent upon us for survival, do we actually have any moral obligation towards them? What if we had no say in that dependency (rape)? What if we did everything in our power to prevent that dependency (birth control/condom)? When and why does that line get crossed where we're no longer responsible?
There's always a shortage of blood, so donating blood will always save lives. Does that mean we have an obligation to donate? Someone's life is dependent on it, right? But... wouldn't that mean we're always obligated to be donating blood constantly?
Obviously, it's a bit of a slippery slope towards catastrophe if we're always obligated to help someone who's currently dependent upon our actions.
This brings us to the third question, the one I consider the most important. The third question aims at determining how consistent a view is towards life. Is it truly priceless?
The only way that abortion could never be an acceptable route is if all life is equally priceless and there's no way of determining if life has a specific value to it.
You would never kill a life to save a life.
At its heart, this is a position of utilitarianism vs. deontology (as I'm sure I've pushed before). Morality as a mathematical calculation or as a universal constant?
However, consider this position:
You're the last guard in an over-crowded prison and you just got a call. You're desperately needed for someone that will likely take all night. No one will be at the prison for many hours. There are no spare cells and no rooms available to house prisoners.
Suddenly, on your way out, the cell of a violent criminal starts melting (or bursts into flames, or has a gas leak- pick your poison). There's nothing you can do to stop it. Your two choices are to either let the prisoner die inside the cell or free the prisoner.
If you let the prisoner go, he said he will murder others.
In the end, your choice is to cause a death or indirectly allow other deaths by his hand.
This particular experiment is the nightmare of deontology- forcing someone into a position in which they cannot follow their ideal moral path. It forces a person to admit that life is not inherently priceless. Life can be worth more than other life. It sucks and it's super duper uncomfortable to admit, but the vast majority of people would let the criminal die rather than allow him to make good on his promise. So, the life of an innocent is worth more than the life of a guilty party.
But that's just one philosophical step, which leads us to our next question.
Can we translate the price of life into any currency other than "lives"? Right now, the criminal couldn't be spared because his life would have come at the cost of other life(s). But what if that wasn't quite the case?
What if this criminal was a serial rapist who did not murder his victims?
He's promised that if you let him out, he'll rape again.
Suddenly the stakes are not a life for a life. It's a life for pain, misery, and trauma.
Would you let him out now?
What if he is assured to commit a hundred rapes if you let him out?
Is a single life worth a hundred instances of that tragedy?
Is there a line for you? How much pain and suffering is worth a life?
At some point, one of two things happens-
1. You admit that life has a price and it's not measured in other lives necessarily.
2. You cling to the pricelessness of life, even if it were to cause the suffering of every single human being on the planet.
If you choose option 2, you're philosophically consistent, but I'd be forced to label you as an idealistic dreamer.
If you choose option 1, then we're getting somewhere. From here on out, you're in a stance of utilitarianism- we're creating a mathematical formula to determine the worth of life.
Lives are capable of being priced in pain, anguish, and suffering. From here, it's a simple matter of asking where and why you draw a line at how much suffering is required before a life can be ended to prevent that suffering.
Once you've drawn that line, it's easy to remind you that your single arbitrary position is what created that line. Other people have different lines that they've arbitrarily created, and you have to accept that for some of those people, terminating a pregnancy to avoid suffering is well within their rights.
The crux here is that a valid counterargument would suggest that if we use this logic, then we should be able to kill our annoying neighbor or our boss depending on how much suffering they inflict.
On its face, the argument appears to hold water, but remember, we're dealing with a mathematical formula- your suffering isn't the only important factor.
Let's give some numbers to this exercise.
Let's say your boss causes you 1,500 "suffering" points. So, you think you'd be justified in killing him. Well, hold on. He causes his wife -1,000 suffering. And his child -1,800 suffering. And between his friends and family and other employees, he causes -4,200. So, in total, he causes -7,000 suffering to offset your 1,500. The net total is still -5,500 suffering caused by this human. Therefore, he does more good than bad and killing him would cause more suffering than it would alleviate, making it an action that is immoral by utilitarian standards.
With that in mind, let's revisit the idea of abortion. A fetus that is not currently emotionally connected to other humans is a lot easier to parse out with math.
The fetus is worth 400 points of suffering to the mother. This amount is almost guaranteed to rise as the physical, emotional, and financial demands of pregnancy persist. The father is caused a net 100 suffering because he is pained by the mother's agony and difficult choice, but he's otherwise indifferent to having or not having the child. No one else knows of its existence and there is therefore, no one else who is caused suffering points (whether positive or negative). As such, the fetus causes a net 500 suffering. The abortion is arguably justified at that point.
This isn't a particularly convincing argument when you get down to it though, I must admit. If you have an eight-year-old who has no friends and only immediate family who hate him, he might cause a net positive amount of suffering, but it would problematic to kill this child, wouldn't it?
In the end, even utilitarians want to cling to some universal ethical principles, but not others. We're not above our own inconsistencies.
So, why then would abortion be morally acceptable, but not the killing of your own child if both yielded positive total suffering?
The best I can honestly come up with is a lack of alternatives.
If women had a cheap, safe, and easy way to expel a fetus in such a way that it could still be kept alive, then I think most people on both sides would be satisfied. However, such a method does not exist. The closest is to bear the burden of pregnancy to full term and then to give the baby up for adoption. However, the problem with this method is that it takes serious physical, emotional, psychological, and financial tolls on the woman that could otherwise be avoided. Similarly, adoption poses certain problems for many children (often non-white children). They're thrown into a system that is underfunded and often poorly run. The children may not be adequately cared for or ever adopted.
So, in lieu of a perfect alternative that alleviates everyone's problems, someone has to make the sacrifice, and I'm inclined to people do with their body what they want more than I'm inclined to suggest that fetuses have the same rights as children.
It's not a satisfying conclusion, but if you've followed and understand the previous arguments, then surely you feel the same sense of dissatisfaction, yes?
Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm missing some vital pieces of information or perspective that might make the decision easier.
What are your thoughts?
-
Waddles
This guy.
As a result, I present you with Tuesday's blog post.
With Roe V. Wade sitting directly forty years behind us, abortion has been a hot button topic.
Reddit even had the pleasure of hosting workers at an abortion clinic for an AMA (ask me anything- it's a community interview) seen here
I've read many not-so-compelling arguments against abortion and lots of attempts to boil down the argument to its single-value-essence, like "ultimately, the question is when you define life as starting."
I'd like to clarify that there isn't just one of these value-essences- there are several. Off the top of my head:
1. When do you define the beginning of life?
2. Is the freedom of one person more, less, or equally valuable as the rights of a dependent person?
3. Is human life priceless, or can you put a value on it in certain circumstances?
4. Can the price of human life (if it exists) be translated into a currency other than "lives"?
All four of these questions can result in a fundamental position-shift on the topic of abortion depending on how you answer them. The follow-up "why" question after each one also exposes cognitive dissonance and poorly-crafted philosophies.
The first question is an almost entirely arbitrary and subjective question that you can't do anything with. It's impossible to determine a consensus for life's origins because it's such a continuous and nebulous process. In other words, not an argument worth having.
The second question is far more interesting since any answer has serious implications on many other opinions. Dependents come in many forms- children, fetuses, the elderly, the physically/mentally challenged, intended, unintended, forced, etc.
It brings to mind the thought experiment of the Violinist. The meat of the experiment is if you wake up connected to a famous violinist and you're told he'll die if you disconnect yourself from him, do you have any obligation to stay connected to him? He'll be cured in nine months, but you cannot move and you're the only one that can save him. You were not consulted prior to becoming connected and instead, you were kidnapped.
The idea is that if someone is truly dependent upon us for survival, do we actually have any moral obligation towards them? What if we had no say in that dependency (rape)? What if we did everything in our power to prevent that dependency (birth control/condom)? When and why does that line get crossed where we're no longer responsible?
There's always a shortage of blood, so donating blood will always save lives. Does that mean we have an obligation to donate? Someone's life is dependent on it, right? But... wouldn't that mean we're always obligated to be donating blood constantly?
Obviously, it's a bit of a slippery slope towards catastrophe if we're always obligated to help someone who's currently dependent upon our actions.
This brings us to the third question, the one I consider the most important. The third question aims at determining how consistent a view is towards life. Is it truly priceless?
The only way that abortion could never be an acceptable route is if all life is equally priceless and there's no way of determining if life has a specific value to it.
You would never kill a life to save a life.
At its heart, this is a position of utilitarianism vs. deontology (as I'm sure I've pushed before). Morality as a mathematical calculation or as a universal constant?
However, consider this position:
You're the last guard in an over-crowded prison and you just got a call. You're desperately needed for someone that will likely take all night. No one will be at the prison for many hours. There are no spare cells and no rooms available to house prisoners.
Suddenly, on your way out, the cell of a violent criminal starts melting (or bursts into flames, or has a gas leak- pick your poison). There's nothing you can do to stop it. Your two choices are to either let the prisoner die inside the cell or free the prisoner.
If you let the prisoner go, he said he will murder others.
In the end, your choice is to cause a death or indirectly allow other deaths by his hand.
This particular experiment is the nightmare of deontology- forcing someone into a position in which they cannot follow their ideal moral path. It forces a person to admit that life is not inherently priceless. Life can be worth more than other life. It sucks and it's super duper uncomfortable to admit, but the vast majority of people would let the criminal die rather than allow him to make good on his promise. So, the life of an innocent is worth more than the life of a guilty party.
But that's just one philosophical step, which leads us to our next question.
Can we translate the price of life into any currency other than "lives"? Right now, the criminal couldn't be spared because his life would have come at the cost of other life(s). But what if that wasn't quite the case?
What if this criminal was a serial rapist who did not murder his victims?
He's promised that if you let him out, he'll rape again.
Suddenly the stakes are not a life for a life. It's a life for pain, misery, and trauma.
Would you let him out now?
What if he is assured to commit a hundred rapes if you let him out?
Is a single life worth a hundred instances of that tragedy?
Is there a line for you? How much pain and suffering is worth a life?
At some point, one of two things happens-
1. You admit that life has a price and it's not measured in other lives necessarily.
2. You cling to the pricelessness of life, even if it were to cause the suffering of every single human being on the planet.
If you choose option 2, you're philosophically consistent, but I'd be forced to label you as an idealistic dreamer.
If you choose option 1, then we're getting somewhere. From here on out, you're in a stance of utilitarianism- we're creating a mathematical formula to determine the worth of life.
Lives are capable of being priced in pain, anguish, and suffering. From here, it's a simple matter of asking where and why you draw a line at how much suffering is required before a life can be ended to prevent that suffering.
Once you've drawn that line, it's easy to remind you that your single arbitrary position is what created that line. Other people have different lines that they've arbitrarily created, and you have to accept that for some of those people, terminating a pregnancy to avoid suffering is well within their rights.
The crux here is that a valid counterargument would suggest that if we use this logic, then we should be able to kill our annoying neighbor or our boss depending on how much suffering they inflict.
On its face, the argument appears to hold water, but remember, we're dealing with a mathematical formula- your suffering isn't the only important factor.
Let's give some numbers to this exercise.
Let's say your boss causes you 1,500 "suffering" points. So, you think you'd be justified in killing him. Well, hold on. He causes his wife -1,000 suffering. And his child -1,800 suffering. And between his friends and family and other employees, he causes -4,200. So, in total, he causes -7,000 suffering to offset your 1,500. The net total is still -5,500 suffering caused by this human. Therefore, he does more good than bad and killing him would cause more suffering than it would alleviate, making it an action that is immoral by utilitarian standards.
With that in mind, let's revisit the idea of abortion. A fetus that is not currently emotionally connected to other humans is a lot easier to parse out with math.
The fetus is worth 400 points of suffering to the mother. This amount is almost guaranteed to rise as the physical, emotional, and financial demands of pregnancy persist. The father is caused a net 100 suffering because he is pained by the mother's agony and difficult choice, but he's otherwise indifferent to having or not having the child. No one else knows of its existence and there is therefore, no one else who is caused suffering points (whether positive or negative). As such, the fetus causes a net 500 suffering. The abortion is arguably justified at that point.
This isn't a particularly convincing argument when you get down to it though, I must admit. If you have an eight-year-old who has no friends and only immediate family who hate him, he might cause a net positive amount of suffering, but it would problematic to kill this child, wouldn't it?
In the end, even utilitarians want to cling to some universal ethical principles, but not others. We're not above our own inconsistencies.
So, why then would abortion be morally acceptable, but not the killing of your own child if both yielded positive total suffering?
The best I can honestly come up with is a lack of alternatives.
If women had a cheap, safe, and easy way to expel a fetus in such a way that it could still be kept alive, then I think most people on both sides would be satisfied. However, such a method does not exist. The closest is to bear the burden of pregnancy to full term and then to give the baby up for adoption. However, the problem with this method is that it takes serious physical, emotional, psychological, and financial tolls on the woman that could otherwise be avoided. Similarly, adoption poses certain problems for many children (often non-white children). They're thrown into a system that is underfunded and often poorly run. The children may not be adequately cared for or ever adopted.
So, in lieu of a perfect alternative that alleviates everyone's problems, someone has to make the sacrifice, and I'm inclined to people do with their body what they want more than I'm inclined to suggest that fetuses have the same rights as children.
It's not a satisfying conclusion, but if you've followed and understand the previous arguments, then surely you feel the same sense of dissatisfaction, yes?
Of course, it's entirely possible that I'm missing some vital pieces of information or perspective that might make the decision easier.
What are your thoughts?
-
Waddles
Friday, January 18, 2013
Compromise and Creating Sides
A discussion on gun control by a great friend of mine kickstarted the gears in my head yesterday. In particular, the topic of compromise between two "sides" came up and I started to think about that.
In an earlier post, I discussed Aristotle's idea of the Golden Mean at some point- the concept that a virtue lies between two opposing extremes.
For example, in the realm of eating, one extreme is self-starvation, while the opposing extreme is over-indulgence, leaving the golden mean to be found in the middle- something akin to "eating as necessary and when appropriate."
Obviously, the Golden Mean leaves for some wiggle room as the mid-point for two extremes is typically kind of subjective.
However, so long as you can agree on the perspective from which to approach an issue, the Golden Mean is a fabulous method of determining a virtue.
So, what's the problem? The beef I have with it isn't actually one of abstract principle, but rather one of practicality.
The Golden Mean is too narrow, being focused on one particular action while failing to account for any complex scenarios that include a multitude of actions or motivations. As such, there is no Golden Mean between being Conservative and being Liberal because those two aren't actions, but are instead, ideologies. Because of this conundrum, we've come to a point in our political discourse where people, from basic learning to higher education and beyond, have mistaken compromise for merely the mid-point between two current opposing views.
It sounds like the Golden Mean and it sounds like it should work... Until you examine it further. Since we're not dealing with a single action or trait, determining actual extremes is incredibly difficult and entirely based on cultural perspective.
To simply this argument (since I know I'm being nebulous right now), let's go back to the action of eating and combine it with the liberal and conservative ideologies.
Look at this line as the continuum for eating as an action where the left-hand extreme is total self-starvation, where the right-hand extreme is eating literally all the time:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
It's a large continuum to be sure. Now, say in this analogy that "liberals" have made up a group that almost half of the country can get behind- these people want to eat three meals a day with snacks in between for enjoyment. And let's say that "conservatives" have made up a group with almost half the country supporting it as well. They want to keep it down to two meals a day without snacks in between. Now, our continuum looks a little something like this.
|------------------------------!---------------------------------------------?-----------------------------------|
The question mark representing "liberals" and the exclamation mark representing "conservatives. Right now, they're equally spread apart and roughly equidistant from each endpoint. Equally extreme ideologies. However, let's say that over the next ten years, "liberals" remain the same, while "conservatives" seek to cut the number of meals in a day down to one. Our continuum is adjusted accordingly.
|----------!------------------------------------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Now that one group is skewed further towards the one extreme than the other group towards their extreme, we have a bit of a different issue.
If we try to find a midpoint between both sides- a compromise, if you will, it looks a bit like this:
|----------!------------------------------+------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Where the plus is the compromise, we see a mid-point between the two groups. However, it's not a midpoint between the two poles. As such, the "compromise" is still not the Golden Mean. This is because either side is capable of artificially pushing or pulling the boundaries of what we consider the two "extremes," and it's what happens when we view groups as extremes rather than traits or actions.
Push this into the political sphere and suddenly, it makes a little more sense.
If conservatives have a massive push for creationism in school and liberals have a push to leave religion and school separate, wouldn't the midpoint between the two- the compromise- be to have some religious-based education in schools?
Obviously, we can see where that argument breaks down.
If we're allowed to artificially push back the goal posts for what is "extreme," then one side is entirely capable of pushing their side further back, not out of actual conviction for their ideology, but solely to make the "midpoint" between the two "extremes" further to their own side.
To bring this back to the food analogy, let's say that "liberals" don't want to eat any more than they previously said. They want three meals and snacks. However, if they're forced to compromise, why not push back their position to "eating all the time constantly"? Then the continuum would look like this.
|----------!-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------?|
The compromise is not slightly to the right of the middle. So, even though "liberals" in this case do not want the position they're advocating for, it benefits them to hold that position regardless since we're working within the confines of this compromise-based political sphere.
As a system, it's clearly unsound. To bring it into reality, I would say that it's become apparent that the Republicans have artificially pushed their position further to the extreme recently. Whether this has been too force the midpoint further in their direction, or if it's actually due to conviction cannot technically be proven, but the end is still the same. In order to compromise with a new radical element, new concessions must be made by Democrats despite their overall positions changing a relatively small amount over the same period of time.
If it feels a little like we're being cheated, that's because we are thanks to this system of compromise.
But what do we do then?
Well, I don't have a good answer, because the only solution I can think of relies on individuals to make an ethical decision to seek the Golden Mean in their lives.
The GM between avarice and total humility lies somewhere near "making what you earn and living at/below your means."
The GM for punishing wrongdoing may be in the middle of "letting them go," and "killing them and their whole family." (or whatever the harshest punishment you can inflict is)
Perhaps- "Community service, rehabilitation, and reparations towards the person(s) you harmed."
The GM for having protection between "no one has any weaponry," and "everyone has every weaponry" might be to have a well-regulated body whose specific duty is overseeing the protection of innocents- and only this body would have weaponry.
However, as I mentioned earlier, the more broad we get, the harder it is to find a Golden Mean, since we're talking about more than just a single action or trait. As such, all three of the examples I just gave are all somewhat subjective and tentative. All three could have extenuating circumstances and the perspective from which you approach each individual issue has an impact on where you see the extremes.
It's complicated.
-
Wad
In an earlier post, I discussed Aristotle's idea of the Golden Mean at some point- the concept that a virtue lies between two opposing extremes.
For example, in the realm of eating, one extreme is self-starvation, while the opposing extreme is over-indulgence, leaving the golden mean to be found in the middle- something akin to "eating as necessary and when appropriate."
Obviously, the Golden Mean leaves for some wiggle room as the mid-point for two extremes is typically kind of subjective.
However, so long as you can agree on the perspective from which to approach an issue, the Golden Mean is a fabulous method of determining a virtue.
So, what's the problem? The beef I have with it isn't actually one of abstract principle, but rather one of practicality.
The Golden Mean is too narrow, being focused on one particular action while failing to account for any complex scenarios that include a multitude of actions or motivations. As such, there is no Golden Mean between being Conservative and being Liberal because those two aren't actions, but are instead, ideologies. Because of this conundrum, we've come to a point in our political discourse where people, from basic learning to higher education and beyond, have mistaken compromise for merely the mid-point between two current opposing views.
It sounds like the Golden Mean and it sounds like it should work... Until you examine it further. Since we're not dealing with a single action or trait, determining actual extremes is incredibly difficult and entirely based on cultural perspective.
To simply this argument (since I know I'm being nebulous right now), let's go back to the action of eating and combine it with the liberal and conservative ideologies.
Look at this line as the continuum for eating as an action where the left-hand extreme is total self-starvation, where the right-hand extreme is eating literally all the time:
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
It's a large continuum to be sure. Now, say in this analogy that "liberals" have made up a group that almost half of the country can get behind- these people want to eat three meals a day with snacks in between for enjoyment. And let's say that "conservatives" have made up a group with almost half the country supporting it as well. They want to keep it down to two meals a day without snacks in between. Now, our continuum looks a little something like this.
|------------------------------!---------------------------------------------?-----------------------------------|
The question mark representing "liberals" and the exclamation mark representing "conservatives. Right now, they're equally spread apart and roughly equidistant from each endpoint. Equally extreme ideologies. However, let's say that over the next ten years, "liberals" remain the same, while "conservatives" seek to cut the number of meals in a day down to one. Our continuum is adjusted accordingly.
|----------!------------------------------------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Now that one group is skewed further towards the one extreme than the other group towards their extreme, we have a bit of a different issue.
If we try to find a midpoint between both sides- a compromise, if you will, it looks a bit like this:
|----------!------------------------------+------------------------------------?----------------------------------|
Where the plus is the compromise, we see a mid-point between the two groups. However, it's not a midpoint between the two poles. As such, the "compromise" is still not the Golden Mean. This is because either side is capable of artificially pushing or pulling the boundaries of what we consider the two "extremes," and it's what happens when we view groups as extremes rather than traits or actions.
Push this into the political sphere and suddenly, it makes a little more sense.
If conservatives have a massive push for creationism in school and liberals have a push to leave religion and school separate, wouldn't the midpoint between the two- the compromise- be to have some religious-based education in schools?
Obviously, we can see where that argument breaks down.
If we're allowed to artificially push back the goal posts for what is "extreme," then one side is entirely capable of pushing their side further back, not out of actual conviction for their ideology, but solely to make the "midpoint" between the two "extremes" further to their own side.
To bring this back to the food analogy, let's say that "liberals" don't want to eat any more than they previously said. They want three meals and snacks. However, if they're forced to compromise, why not push back their position to "eating all the time constantly"? Then the continuum would look like this.
|----------!-----------------------------------------------+-----------------------------------------------------?|
The compromise is not slightly to the right of the middle. So, even though "liberals" in this case do not want the position they're advocating for, it benefits them to hold that position regardless since we're working within the confines of this compromise-based political sphere.
As a system, it's clearly unsound. To bring it into reality, I would say that it's become apparent that the Republicans have artificially pushed their position further to the extreme recently. Whether this has been too force the midpoint further in their direction, or if it's actually due to conviction cannot technically be proven, but the end is still the same. In order to compromise with a new radical element, new concessions must be made by Democrats despite their overall positions changing a relatively small amount over the same period of time.
If it feels a little like we're being cheated, that's because we are thanks to this system of compromise.
But what do we do then?
Well, I don't have a good answer, because the only solution I can think of relies on individuals to make an ethical decision to seek the Golden Mean in their lives.
The GM between avarice and total humility lies somewhere near "making what you earn and living at/below your means."
The GM for punishing wrongdoing may be in the middle of "letting them go," and "killing them and their whole family." (or whatever the harshest punishment you can inflict is)
Perhaps- "Community service, rehabilitation, and reparations towards the person(s) you harmed."
The GM for having protection between "no one has any weaponry," and "everyone has every weaponry" might be to have a well-regulated body whose specific duty is overseeing the protection of innocents- and only this body would have weaponry.
However, as I mentioned earlier, the more broad we get, the harder it is to find a Golden Mean, since we're talking about more than just a single action or trait. As such, all three of the examples I just gave are all somewhat subjective and tentative. All three could have extenuating circumstances and the perspective from which you approach each individual issue has an impact on where you see the extremes.
It's complicated.
-
Wad
Monday, January 14, 2013
Shaming some Shamers
Short post tonight because feel like poop (that's how you craft a coherent sentence, yes?).
I feel I need to call out some behavior that I've seen recently from friends and acquaintances of mine who I thought were more in touch with gender issues.
Alcohol.
I know plenty of people, myself included, who are completely willing to call out sexism as it happens in most situations.
So why is it, then, that a healthy percentage of these same people will adhere to and even invoke sexism in the realm of alcohol?
Chuggin' Milwaukee's best makes you a man now? You're tough because you do shots instead of of mixed drinks? He's a girl because he likes Smirnoff Ice? You're somehow better than someone in a weird primordial strength scale because your body holds alcohol better than someone else?
What the fuck is this shit?
Come on, people. I know some of you who flip out when someone says something misogynistic, but you're willing to perpetuate these shitty gendered ideas that what you choose to drink to get hammered with has any impact on how studly you are? It's a matter of taste, opinion, and sensory desire. It's subjective- 100% different based on the person, regardless of how tough or cool they are.
You know what you sound like when you brag about how you can do shots?
You sound like this. More specifically, you sound like the entire scene (no good full scene on youtube) including Spongebob bragging that he stubbed his toe while watering his spice garden- and he only cried for 20 minutes.
It's subjective. You're perpetuating something stupid and it makes you look like an idiot while you're doing it.
[Short and angry. I'll get better one of these days]
-
Wad
I feel I need to call out some behavior that I've seen recently from friends and acquaintances of mine who I thought were more in touch with gender issues.
Alcohol.
I know plenty of people, myself included, who are completely willing to call out sexism as it happens in most situations.
So why is it, then, that a healthy percentage of these same people will adhere to and even invoke sexism in the realm of alcohol?
Chuggin' Milwaukee's best makes you a man now? You're tough because you do shots instead of of mixed drinks? He's a girl because he likes Smirnoff Ice? You're somehow better than someone in a weird primordial strength scale because your body holds alcohol better than someone else?
What the fuck is this shit?
Come on, people. I know some of you who flip out when someone says something misogynistic, but you're willing to perpetuate these shitty gendered ideas that what you choose to drink to get hammered with has any impact on how studly you are? It's a matter of taste, opinion, and sensory desire. It's subjective- 100% different based on the person, regardless of how tough or cool they are.
You know what you sound like when you brag about how you can do shots?
You sound like this. More specifically, you sound like the entire scene (no good full scene on youtube) including Spongebob bragging that he stubbed his toe while watering his spice garden- and he only cried for 20 minutes.
It's subjective. You're perpetuating something stupid and it makes you look like an idiot while you're doing it.
[Short and angry. I'll get better one of these days]
-
Wad
Saturday, January 12, 2013
I'm bad about updating
It's been a week of stress, so I've been particularly lousy about updating the blog.
I'm also slowing down on rants these days, since I've covered many of the basic topics that I actually know something about.
This means if I want to keep it up, I'll need to do research prior to each blog post, which leads me to a question for all three of my viewers--
Would you rather see me continue my stream-of-consciousness style posts that are thrice a week, or would you rather see one a week that is probably longer and better written with maybe a citation or two?
Both seem like viable options, but it's also 4:50 in the morning, so that might just be my sleep-addled mind jumping to dumb conclusions again...
Either way, throw a post on my Facebook wall if you have a strong opinion either way.
Sorry again for the lack of content for the week!
(Funny story though, I was caught with my foot totally in my mouth on Facebook today. Find my post where I share a link on the "science behind the friendzone" or whatever.
I stand by a point or two, but for the most part, my academic background had leaked out of my head and I agreed with something that wasn't nearly as well-written as I'd originally thought)
-
Waddles
I'm also slowing down on rants these days, since I've covered many of the basic topics that I actually know something about.
This means if I want to keep it up, I'll need to do research prior to each blog post, which leads me to a question for all three of my viewers--
Would you rather see me continue my stream-of-consciousness style posts that are thrice a week, or would you rather see one a week that is probably longer and better written with maybe a citation or two?
Both seem like viable options, but it's also 4:50 in the morning, so that might just be my sleep-addled mind jumping to dumb conclusions again...
Either way, throw a post on my Facebook wall if you have a strong opinion either way.
Sorry again for the lack of content for the week!
(Funny story though, I was caught with my foot totally in my mouth on Facebook today. Find my post where I share a link on the "science behind the friendzone" or whatever.
I stand by a point or two, but for the most part, my academic background had leaked out of my head and I agreed with something that wasn't nearly as well-written as I'd originally thought)
-
Waddles
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
I'm mad about the fiscal cliff
....
Yeah, that about wraps up my feelings on the topic.
(Sorry, I'm dead tired.)
I'll try to get something more substantial out on the topic tomorrow.
The super brief version:
Our congress artificially manufactured a crisis and then spent the last few months trying desperately to "solve it," which really meant that congressional Republicans wanted an excuse to enact more austerity measures targeting people who are already in need in lieu of raising taxes on the wealthy.
And instead of compromising, they collectively shoved their heads back up Grover Norquist's ass.
Being the pushover he is, Obama opted to compromise despite having basically all the power in the situation. If the crisis hadn't been averted, all blame would have rest squarely on the Republican members of congress, effectively ensuring even more bad publicity behind them (not that that seems to be doing any good). So, it was in the Republicans' best interest to do whatever the Democrats wanted.
This continued war over taxation on the wealthy is dumb.
It's already been proven most of these people are not small business owners (as speaker Boehner likes to claim), so the claim that they need the money is drowned out by the sound of number of yachts owned by these few rich folks.
If you take money out of social security and safety net programs, you're taking away the very necessary food and medicine that many people desperately need to help get them out of poverty.
If you tax the wealthy more, they can only take six family vacations instead of five each year (WARNING: Totally made-up consequence. In reality, wealthy people being targeted are not often at risk of running out of money, so they can still do whatever the hell they want because that's how being wealthy works).
I'm tired and I know I'm being exceedingly critical of wealthy people (intentionally geared towards the top .1% rather than simply the top 1%), but they have more than they will ever need or ever use.
The ultimate argument ends up being thus:
Should people have the freedom to be greedy jerks or not?
I'm all for the freedom to pursue happiness within reasonable bounds. If you're happiest murdering people, I have a problem with you.
If you're happiest amassing wealth solely to safeguard it and you have no plans on lubricating the economy by actually spending it, then I have a problem with you.
It's like sitting down to play a board game and creating your own win condition that makes everyone else miserable.
[I'm making a million bad arguments, and I realize this. I'm sorry, I just don't have the mental capacity right now...]
-
Wad
Yeah, that about wraps up my feelings on the topic.
(Sorry, I'm dead tired.)
I'll try to get something more substantial out on the topic tomorrow.
The super brief version:
Our congress artificially manufactured a crisis and then spent the last few months trying desperately to "solve it," which really meant that congressional Republicans wanted an excuse to enact more austerity measures targeting people who are already in need in lieu of raising taxes on the wealthy.
And instead of compromising, they collectively shoved their heads back up Grover Norquist's ass.
Being the pushover he is, Obama opted to compromise despite having basically all the power in the situation. If the crisis hadn't been averted, all blame would have rest squarely on the Republican members of congress, effectively ensuring even more bad publicity behind them (not that that seems to be doing any good). So, it was in the Republicans' best interest to do whatever the Democrats wanted.
This continued war over taxation on the wealthy is dumb.
It's already been proven most of these people are not small business owners (as speaker Boehner likes to claim), so the claim that they need the money is drowned out by the sound of number of yachts owned by these few rich folks.
If you take money out of social security and safety net programs, you're taking away the very necessary food and medicine that many people desperately need to help get them out of poverty.
If you tax the wealthy more, they can only take six family vacations instead of five each year (WARNING: Totally made-up consequence. In reality, wealthy people being targeted are not often at risk of running out of money, so they can still do whatever the hell they want because that's how being wealthy works).
I'm tired and I know I'm being exceedingly critical of wealthy people (intentionally geared towards the top .1% rather than simply the top 1%), but they have more than they will ever need or ever use.
The ultimate argument ends up being thus:
Should people have the freedom to be greedy jerks or not?
I'm all for the freedom to pursue happiness within reasonable bounds. If you're happiest murdering people, I have a problem with you.
If you're happiest amassing wealth solely to safeguard it and you have no plans on lubricating the economy by actually spending it, then I have a problem with you.
It's like sitting down to play a board game and creating your own win condition that makes everyone else miserable.
[I'm making a million bad arguments, and I realize this. I'm sorry, I just don't have the mental capacity right now...]
-
Wad
Monday, January 7, 2013
Steubenville
No.
No, no, no, no, nope.
Nope.
Have we learned nothing from Penn State?
Human rights scandals are not worth it to save your local sports team.
I don't care who you are, who they are, or how great at football anyone is, if you rape someone, you deserve to go to jail. For a long time.
And if you're dumb enough to photograph or videotape any of it, you deserve to be ruthlessly mocked for your brazen lack of foresight.
*breath*
Okay, for those who haven't followed it, Steubenville is the small town site of a recent incident in which a group of high school football players raped (documenting much of the process as well) a drunk girl at a party. No one stopped them, and despite DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, it was dismissed and swept under the rug in order to protect the integrity of the sports team because that's all that crappy little town has going for it.
Fast forward- Anonymous-- the dubious group of.... I don't really know what to call them. They seem to be just as keen on ruining lives as they are on seeing people brought to justice, so for now, let's just call them on-again-off-again-vigilantes-- released the video and photographic evidence online and generated an enormous amount of viral push to see the high school kids brought to justice.
The response from Steubenville was, originally, to completely ignore the issue, hoping it would go away. Luckily, the general public isn't fond of rape being systematically covered up, so the scandal persisted until the town's higher ups eventually got involved. And that's where we are today.
It's a continually-unfolding story, so there's not much I can report on except to shame the hell out of this town for caring more about their sports team than the violation of the basic human integrity of someone who did no wrong (beyond being an intoxicated minor).
I really don't have the heart to touch on the ethical implications of a unified decision like this by such a town. Really, I can only stumble and place the two things at stake in glaring juxtaposition to each other.
A FOOTBALL TEAM
or
JUSTICE BEING SERVED TO UNREPENTANT RAPISTS.
I don't.... I.... WHAT IS THIS?!
Anyone who knows me in-person has, at some point, heard my opinion on sports. I'm not a fan of them existing within institutions for which the purpose is education. I think the two should be separate and there should be no excuses given to someone who does poorly in education just because they excel in sports. Legal leniency should not be applied to the "star quarterback," and I don't think a school should use any of its endowment towards giving sports scholarships to anyone when there are plenty of financially disadvantaged academics yearning for the chance to obtain quality higher education.
If you like sports, that's fine. It's a totally acceptable hobby just like any other. However, I don't expect a college to pay for my education just because I'm good at Smash Brothers, and likewise, you shouldn't expect a college to pay for your education just because you can throw a ball in a hoop.
This "sports > all" mentality that drives our country leads us to be apologists for behavior like this-- totally intolerable behavior that traumatizes and destroys lives. Years of emotional damage and you don't even have the decency to punish the people responsible just because they're good at a game?!
I think you get where I'm going with this...
-
Waddles
No, no, no, no, nope.
Nope.
Have we learned nothing from Penn State?
Human rights scandals are not worth it to save your local sports team.
I don't care who you are, who they are, or how great at football anyone is, if you rape someone, you deserve to go to jail. For a long time.
And if you're dumb enough to photograph or videotape any of it, you deserve to be ruthlessly mocked for your brazen lack of foresight.
*breath*
Okay, for those who haven't followed it, Steubenville is the small town site of a recent incident in which a group of high school football players raped (documenting much of the process as well) a drunk girl at a party. No one stopped them, and despite DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE, it was dismissed and swept under the rug in order to protect the integrity of the sports team because that's all that crappy little town has going for it.
Fast forward- Anonymous-- the dubious group of.... I don't really know what to call them. They seem to be just as keen on ruining lives as they are on seeing people brought to justice, so for now, let's just call them on-again-off-again-vigilantes-- released the video and photographic evidence online and generated an enormous amount of viral push to see the high school kids brought to justice.
The response from Steubenville was, originally, to completely ignore the issue, hoping it would go away. Luckily, the general public isn't fond of rape being systematically covered up, so the scandal persisted until the town's higher ups eventually got involved. And that's where we are today.
It's a continually-unfolding story, so there's not much I can report on except to shame the hell out of this town for caring more about their sports team than the violation of the basic human integrity of someone who did no wrong (beyond being an intoxicated minor).
I really don't have the heart to touch on the ethical implications of a unified decision like this by such a town. Really, I can only stumble and place the two things at stake in glaring juxtaposition to each other.
A FOOTBALL TEAM
or
JUSTICE BEING SERVED TO UNREPENTANT RAPISTS.
I don't.... I.... WHAT IS THIS?!
Anyone who knows me in-person has, at some point, heard my opinion on sports. I'm not a fan of them existing within institutions for which the purpose is education. I think the two should be separate and there should be no excuses given to someone who does poorly in education just because they excel in sports. Legal leniency should not be applied to the "star quarterback," and I don't think a school should use any of its endowment towards giving sports scholarships to anyone when there are plenty of financially disadvantaged academics yearning for the chance to obtain quality higher education.
If you like sports, that's fine. It's a totally acceptable hobby just like any other. However, I don't expect a college to pay for my education just because I'm good at Smash Brothers, and likewise, you shouldn't expect a college to pay for your education just because you can throw a ball in a hoop.
This "sports > all" mentality that drives our country leads us to be apologists for behavior like this-- totally intolerable behavior that traumatizes and destroys lives. Years of emotional damage and you don't even have the decency to punish the people responsible just because they're good at a game?!
I think you get where I'm going with this...
-
Waddles
Friday, January 4, 2013
Language and Jokes
In the first real post returning to my beautiful home with my beautiful roommates and my beautiful girlfriend (beautiful), I'm interested in dabbling in a topic that I've had no small number of disagreements about:
The way we use language and jokes.
I'm looking to tackle this due to the existence of a Tumblr gimmick account (Whether or not I should even be taking something like that seriously is another issue...) called "'Nice guys' of OKCupid" found at http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com
Suffice it to say the blog's intention is to point out a number of males on the dating site, OK Cupid, who claim to be a nice guy, yet have traits or opinions that are inconsistent with being "nice."
The idea spawned from the phrase "nice guy," (quotations included in the actual phrase) which refers to a male who specifically claims that he is a nice guy, yet he blames women for not being romantically or sexually interested in him, while also blaming women for problems in their own lives that involve other men. These males usually have an outward disdain for "bad boys" or jocks or whatever.
Psychologically, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that a lot of these people may have been bullied growing up, so they reject a culture that they perceive to be problematic, but they haven't grown to forgive the world, so they still blame the people around them for things that go wrong. Many of these people are socially awkward and have a bit of a superiority complex, which explains why they refuse to accept the idea that their ideology is problematic in the first place.
It's a recursive problem- If you don't have anyone in your life to point out your glaring social problems, you won't make any friends, which means you won't have anyone to help you with your social problems.
It's really a cultural creation that I would wager stems from the current discourse on gender roles in our society. We want to reject them, but many of them are so deep-seated that we don't notice when we're still enacting and perpetuating them. Conflicting role ques about masculinity cause these unfortunate souls to want to pry themselves from the culture, despite the fact that they carry many lingering ties to the culture- they're totally unaware and they haven't had anyone to correct them.
Anyway- enough digression.
One common pattern that people like to point out about the "nice guy" culture is that they tend to complain about being "friendzoned," in a negative context. The critique, as I've read it, is that this complaint suggests that these guys expect each potential romantic partner to acquiesce to their manpassion and have the funtimesex.
I'm wary of the previous critique. I don't read it as an expectation usually (although there certainly are times where that seems to be the case)- I usually read it as a pure lamentation of events in their lives.
Let me explain what I mean. In every potential romantic encounter, particularly after a lengthy spell of looking, you (collective) are not going to be happy if you find out that your interest in a partner is not reciprocated. You're left in a state of non-romance where romance was the goal and was a possibility. In lieu of referring to this a "non-reciprocated romance zone," a contemporary word to describe it was brought into existence- the friendzone.
Now personally, I'm not a huge fan of the word. It places a negative connotation on the word "friend," as though having friends is ever a bad thing, though I understand usage of the word, since it spawned from phrases similar to, "let's just be friends." It's not a phrase you want to hear as someone who is seeking a romantic partnership, hence the negative connotation. So, while I don't particularly like the word a whole lot, I understand its usage, particularly in a non-academic situation where people don't have a lot of words they can use to describe their situation.
As I said, however, there are those classy individuals who expect that certain actions ought to result in them being bedded by their romantic pursuit. These people are creeps in the same way that spouses who believe marriage means an obligation to have sex whether you want to or not are creeps. It's nothing about the word "friendzone," but rather the person who uses it.
Which brings us full circle to my intended topic. Language and how we use it.
I've heard the argument that anyone who uses the word "friendzone" seriously is an idiot. I've used it a number of times so far, but I like to think there's value in discussing how we view contemporary language. Now, perhaps the argument would be better stated as, "anyone who uses the word "friendzone" to describe a romantic situation seriously is an idiot." But even then, I'm not buying it. Like I said, I don't like the phrase, and I don't intend to ever use it in its intended context, but I do understand why someone would. I'd say it's a bit of an immature look on a current situation, but not an inaccurate one when used appropriately. Of course, when I say this, it's under the assumption that the word is being used purely descriptively, without any underlying expectation or malice.
It's obviously not someone's fault if they're not attracted to you. Nor should they be expected to do anything for you just because you're polite or whatever. However, whether you're male, female, gay, straight, bi, or any of the fluid, in-between states therein, you're still capable of having your romantic interest place you in a friendzone. And that's something we're all capable of doing. It's how romantic selection works.
If someone comes to you and asks you on a date- you agree, and you come to find that you don't like them, but you might still want to be friends? You are, by definition, placing them into the label of "friendship," that this person is not seeking (at least initially).
And as much as I'm interested in this particular word right now (because controversy, yay), I've got more ground to cover, so we'll head to other words for now-
You often hear cultural relativists tell you that words have no meaning unless you give them meaning. Which is absolutely true. And you may also hear the saying, "You cannot offend me, I can only choose to take offense at what you said." Which is also absolutely true.
However, a lot of people use these arguments poorly to suggest that we should say or do whatever it is we want in public without worrying about the consequences of causing offense. It's a tangled argument, to be sure, but it's not quite as simple as telling a racist joke just because you're not giving it meaning and expecting everyone else to follow suit.
Social interactions follow sets of unwritten rules. One such rule is that people expect you to take into consideration their comfort levels (so long as they're reasonable) in public and in private. Those comfort levels vary between those two situations, so the distinction is important. And I should note that "reasonable" comfort levels are also entirely socially defined usually based on historical context.
For example, it is unreasonable to expect that people around you don't use a common and inoffensive word, like "jerk." Contrarily, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people around you don't use a word known almost exclusively for its offensive properties, like "nigger," or "faggot."
But, these rules can be tipped a little based on context. For example, You may not like hearing the word, but if you're in an academic setting and the words are being used academically, then it is unreasonable to expect people to avoid using them. (e.g. "The word, 'faggot,' has its etymology in...")
And we can tip these rules again when we consider private, social settings. In settings where you know everyone present closely, the social rules are a lot easier to bend, since you can be certain of who is and is not offended by what words. In social interactions with these people, you're able to determine what is and is not acceptable for them. So, even if a word or idea or joke is totally unacceptable in public or around strangers or mixed company, it's up to individual groups of friends to decide whether or not they're okay with hearing/using them. Sometimes this comes out in people being ironically racist, despite not being white. Or being a sexist gender studies student. Or other similar situations. However, it's important to remember that these rules used within friend groups do not transcend to public domain as well.
There's another caveat that I haven't discussed in the realm of "reasonable" expectations:
If you have a trauma related to a word or idea, and whether the trauma is common enough to warrant taking it into consideration when speaking in public (or private) before knowing about the trauma.
For example- rape is a serious problem in our (and many) country. It's typically a horrifyingly traumatic event for those that it happens to. It's not a terribly uncommon occurrence either. So, it is prudent to avoid making rape jokes in public with the knowledge that someone around you may be struggling with the issue already. (Once again, in private, it's up to you and the group you're with to determine whether or not anyone will be offended by ideas or jokes like that)
However, if someone was beaten as a child while being called a normally innocuous word, like "jerk," and they've internalized the word as traumatic, then it would be impossible to predict causing them stress in public, so there's not much that can be done about that. In private, the terms can be negotiated, but they can't in public.
This unfortunate phenomenon means that outliers to trauma are in a problematic situation.
The options that we have are to:
1. Avoid making any jokes or using any words ever, for fear of causing traumatic stress, or
2. Snub trauma outliers and continue making jokes/using words that aren't offensive to the majority of people.
Obviously, the first option is going to be the more ridiculous to most people, as sad as that is for the people who fit into the other group.
The solution, luckily, is pretty easy.
Be polite when you're in public. If you're unsure about a joke being used in mixed company, tell it through writing, text, or whisper. Or just wait to say it later.
In private, make sure you adhere to the requests of others when it comes to words they're not comfortable with.
And, if you're one of these people who is offended by certain words, remember that the intention of the person using them matters. Don't be angry with them (if it's a first offense) if they're using a word/joke/idea non-seriously.
Of course, this is where the public vs. private thing comes in- You can't know if a stranger is using a word seriously or non-seriously since you don't know their background. So, if you're telling a joke in public, remember that, to a stranger, you could very well actually be that racist, misogynist. Even if you know you're not serious, it's not really good enough to avoid causing problems.
Be mindful of the language you use when you use it. Know that there is a time and place for every single topic, idea, joke, and/or word. Even if you don't like it, there may be other people, more or less educated than you, who are willing to use it.
And that time/place is called Cards Against Humanity.
(But seriously, if you play this game with friends and still believe that some words/phrases/ideas are universally offensive, then I think you're being a wee bit inconsistent with yourself)
-
Waddles
The way we use language and jokes.
I'm looking to tackle this due to the existence of a Tumblr gimmick account (Whether or not I should even be taking something like that seriously is another issue...) called "'Nice guys' of OKCupid" found at http://niceguysofokc.tumblr.com
Suffice it to say the blog's intention is to point out a number of males on the dating site, OK Cupid, who claim to be a nice guy, yet have traits or opinions that are inconsistent with being "nice."
The idea spawned from the phrase "nice guy," (quotations included in the actual phrase) which refers to a male who specifically claims that he is a nice guy, yet he blames women for not being romantically or sexually interested in him, while also blaming women for problems in their own lives that involve other men. These males usually have an outward disdain for "bad boys" or jocks or whatever.
Psychologically, it wouldn't be a stretch to suggest that a lot of these people may have been bullied growing up, so they reject a culture that they perceive to be problematic, but they haven't grown to forgive the world, so they still blame the people around them for things that go wrong. Many of these people are socially awkward and have a bit of a superiority complex, which explains why they refuse to accept the idea that their ideology is problematic in the first place.
It's a recursive problem- If you don't have anyone in your life to point out your glaring social problems, you won't make any friends, which means you won't have anyone to help you with your social problems.
It's really a cultural creation that I would wager stems from the current discourse on gender roles in our society. We want to reject them, but many of them are so deep-seated that we don't notice when we're still enacting and perpetuating them. Conflicting role ques about masculinity cause these unfortunate souls to want to pry themselves from the culture, despite the fact that they carry many lingering ties to the culture- they're totally unaware and they haven't had anyone to correct them.
Anyway- enough digression.
One common pattern that people like to point out about the "nice guy" culture is that they tend to complain about being "friendzoned," in a negative context. The critique, as I've read it, is that this complaint suggests that these guys expect each potential romantic partner to acquiesce to their manpassion and have the funtimesex.
I'm wary of the previous critique. I don't read it as an expectation usually (although there certainly are times where that seems to be the case)- I usually read it as a pure lamentation of events in their lives.
Let me explain what I mean. In every potential romantic encounter, particularly after a lengthy spell of looking, you (collective) are not going to be happy if you find out that your interest in a partner is not reciprocated. You're left in a state of non-romance where romance was the goal and was a possibility. In lieu of referring to this a "non-reciprocated romance zone," a contemporary word to describe it was brought into existence- the friendzone.
Now personally, I'm not a huge fan of the word. It places a negative connotation on the word "friend," as though having friends is ever a bad thing, though I understand usage of the word, since it spawned from phrases similar to, "let's just be friends." It's not a phrase you want to hear as someone who is seeking a romantic partnership, hence the negative connotation. So, while I don't particularly like the word a whole lot, I understand its usage, particularly in a non-academic situation where people don't have a lot of words they can use to describe their situation.
As I said, however, there are those classy individuals who expect that certain actions ought to result in them being bedded by their romantic pursuit. These people are creeps in the same way that spouses who believe marriage means an obligation to have sex whether you want to or not are creeps. It's nothing about the word "friendzone," but rather the person who uses it.
Which brings us full circle to my intended topic. Language and how we use it.
I've heard the argument that anyone who uses the word "friendzone" seriously is an idiot. I've used it a number of times so far, but I like to think there's value in discussing how we view contemporary language. Now, perhaps the argument would be better stated as, "anyone who uses the word "friendzone" to describe a romantic situation seriously is an idiot." But even then, I'm not buying it. Like I said, I don't like the phrase, and I don't intend to ever use it in its intended context, but I do understand why someone would. I'd say it's a bit of an immature look on a current situation, but not an inaccurate one when used appropriately. Of course, when I say this, it's under the assumption that the word is being used purely descriptively, without any underlying expectation or malice.
It's obviously not someone's fault if they're not attracted to you. Nor should they be expected to do anything for you just because you're polite or whatever. However, whether you're male, female, gay, straight, bi, or any of the fluid, in-between states therein, you're still capable of having your romantic interest place you in a friendzone. And that's something we're all capable of doing. It's how romantic selection works.
If someone comes to you and asks you on a date- you agree, and you come to find that you don't like them, but you might still want to be friends? You are, by definition, placing them into the label of "friendship," that this person is not seeking (at least initially).
And as much as I'm interested in this particular word right now (because controversy, yay), I've got more ground to cover, so we'll head to other words for now-
You often hear cultural relativists tell you that words have no meaning unless you give them meaning. Which is absolutely true. And you may also hear the saying, "You cannot offend me, I can only choose to take offense at what you said." Which is also absolutely true.
However, a lot of people use these arguments poorly to suggest that we should say or do whatever it is we want in public without worrying about the consequences of causing offense. It's a tangled argument, to be sure, but it's not quite as simple as telling a racist joke just because you're not giving it meaning and expecting everyone else to follow suit.
Social interactions follow sets of unwritten rules. One such rule is that people expect you to take into consideration their comfort levels (so long as they're reasonable) in public and in private. Those comfort levels vary between those two situations, so the distinction is important. And I should note that "reasonable" comfort levels are also entirely socially defined usually based on historical context.
For example, it is unreasonable to expect that people around you don't use a common and inoffensive word, like "jerk." Contrarily, it's perfectly reasonable to expect that people around you don't use a word known almost exclusively for its offensive properties, like "nigger," or "faggot."
But, these rules can be tipped a little based on context. For example, You may not like hearing the word, but if you're in an academic setting and the words are being used academically, then it is unreasonable to expect people to avoid using them. (e.g. "The word, 'faggot,' has its etymology in...")
And we can tip these rules again when we consider private, social settings. In settings where you know everyone present closely, the social rules are a lot easier to bend, since you can be certain of who is and is not offended by what words. In social interactions with these people, you're able to determine what is and is not acceptable for them. So, even if a word or idea or joke is totally unacceptable in public or around strangers or mixed company, it's up to individual groups of friends to decide whether or not they're okay with hearing/using them. Sometimes this comes out in people being ironically racist, despite not being white. Or being a sexist gender studies student. Or other similar situations. However, it's important to remember that these rules used within friend groups do not transcend to public domain as well.
There's another caveat that I haven't discussed in the realm of "reasonable" expectations:
If you have a trauma related to a word or idea, and whether the trauma is common enough to warrant taking it into consideration when speaking in public (or private) before knowing about the trauma.
For example- rape is a serious problem in our (and many) country. It's typically a horrifyingly traumatic event for those that it happens to. It's not a terribly uncommon occurrence either. So, it is prudent to avoid making rape jokes in public with the knowledge that someone around you may be struggling with the issue already. (Once again, in private, it's up to you and the group you're with to determine whether or not anyone will be offended by ideas or jokes like that)
However, if someone was beaten as a child while being called a normally innocuous word, like "jerk," and they've internalized the word as traumatic, then it would be impossible to predict causing them stress in public, so there's not much that can be done about that. In private, the terms can be negotiated, but they can't in public.
This unfortunate phenomenon means that outliers to trauma are in a problematic situation.
The options that we have are to:
1. Avoid making any jokes or using any words ever, for fear of causing traumatic stress, or
2. Snub trauma outliers and continue making jokes/using words that aren't offensive to the majority of people.
Obviously, the first option is going to be the more ridiculous to most people, as sad as that is for the people who fit into the other group.
The solution, luckily, is pretty easy.
Be polite when you're in public. If you're unsure about a joke being used in mixed company, tell it through writing, text, or whisper. Or just wait to say it later.
In private, make sure you adhere to the requests of others when it comes to words they're not comfortable with.
And, if you're one of these people who is offended by certain words, remember that the intention of the person using them matters. Don't be angry with them (if it's a first offense) if they're using a word/joke/idea non-seriously.
Of course, this is where the public vs. private thing comes in- You can't know if a stranger is using a word seriously or non-seriously since you don't know their background. So, if you're telling a joke in public, remember that, to a stranger, you could very well actually be that racist, misogynist. Even if you know you're not serious, it's not really good enough to avoid causing problems.
Be mindful of the language you use when you use it. Know that there is a time and place for every single topic, idea, joke, and/or word. Even if you don't like it, there may be other people, more or less educated than you, who are willing to use it.
And that time/place is called Cards Against Humanity.
(But seriously, if you play this game with friends and still believe that some words/phrases/ideas are universally offensive, then I think you're being a wee bit inconsistent with yourself)
-
Waddles
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Parents and Emotion Lords
I'm almost back home, which means I'll be back into the "regular" swing of blogging.
However, in the meantime, I thought I'd touch on a touch of parental difficulty I went through at home. You know, instead of just talking about it with my dad like a mature adult. Blogging: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
So, I was feeling awful a few days ago while at my dad's house with my two brothers and my brother's roommate. Me feeling bad was from lingering paranoia and depressive thoughts which originated from my self-deprecating view of how I am in relationships.
I was just trying to stay out of everyone's way, since everyone else was mostly watching football- so not an activity I had any wish to engage in- which was fine. Somewhere in the day, I realized how little I wanted to be there, but I wasn't going to say or do anything about it because I know it meant a lot to most of the people there that everyone was together- I get that.
However, after the hour long tribulation that was "what do we eat and how can I pinch as many pennies as possible, Mr. Krabs-style?" I let my depressive mood get the better of me. I didn't want to be involved with any of the ridiculous argumentation going on about saving five dollars worth of food that could be saved at any point in the future (the coupon could literally be used any time, but there we were, trying desperately to print one out for forty minutes). In the end, I opted out of food. Not good, I know. Didn't really care though.
My dad, for all the world trying to be a "nice" guy by helping me with my emotional problems, decided to try confronting me all eight feet away from everyone else in a volume that suggested he didn't seem concerned with matters of privacy. Looking back, I should have made up some really ultra-private issue to be upset about so that he'd realize why it's problematic to confront someone like that.
Regardless, I tried to get him to back away from his insistence that he was the person to help me (due to being my father), even though his best guess as to why I was "cranky" was because I hadn't eaten yet.
Parents who may be reading this- Your child does not owe you emotional exhibition. No one will EVER owe ANYONE else their sense of privacy if they don't wish to give it. It does not make you a good parent to demand it even if you may or may not know how to solve their problem. By the same token, you don't owe your child emotional asylum. It makes you a good parent to offer it in discretion whether or not they seek it, but you cannot demand that they use it, nor should you try to demand it in front of others. That's basically one of the surefire ways to ensure that your child will never seek that emotional asylum.
Emotions are intensely private and individual to each person. Many people go through the same emotions, but often for very different reasons, while simultaneously approaching their emotions in varying ways. Some are okay talking to others by virtue of them asking what's wrong. Others, like me, need to feel like we can trust you completely before we're willing to tell you much. Trust like that is not created by virtue of being a parent. It's earned by being there, being understanding, and knowing that your experience only means so much when it comes to someone else's subjective experience of the world. You don't have all the answers just because you're older or just because you solved your own problems or even just because you've managed to solve other peoples' problems. Your ways may have worked for you or some others, but they may not for someone else. That's the complication with every human being having different chemical balances in their brain.
When in doubt, offer asylum and drop the subject. That's how you build trust.
However, in the meantime, I thought I'd touch on a touch of parental difficulty I went through at home. You know, instead of just talking about it with my dad like a mature adult. Blogging: The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems.
So, I was feeling awful a few days ago while at my dad's house with my two brothers and my brother's roommate. Me feeling bad was from lingering paranoia and depressive thoughts which originated from my self-deprecating view of how I am in relationships.
I was just trying to stay out of everyone's way, since everyone else was mostly watching football- so not an activity I had any wish to engage in- which was fine. Somewhere in the day, I realized how little I wanted to be there, but I wasn't going to say or do anything about it because I know it meant a lot to most of the people there that everyone was together- I get that.
However, after the hour long tribulation that was "what do we eat and how can I pinch as many pennies as possible, Mr. Krabs-style?" I let my depressive mood get the better of me. I didn't want to be involved with any of the ridiculous argumentation going on about saving five dollars worth of food that could be saved at any point in the future (the coupon could literally be used any time, but there we were, trying desperately to print one out for forty minutes). In the end, I opted out of food. Not good, I know. Didn't really care though.
My dad, for all the world trying to be a "nice" guy by helping me with my emotional problems, decided to try confronting me all eight feet away from everyone else in a volume that suggested he didn't seem concerned with matters of privacy. Looking back, I should have made up some really ultra-private issue to be upset about so that he'd realize why it's problematic to confront someone like that.
Regardless, I tried to get him to back away from his insistence that he was the person to help me (due to being my father), even though his best guess as to why I was "cranky" was because I hadn't eaten yet.
Parents who may be reading this- Your child does not owe you emotional exhibition. No one will EVER owe ANYONE else their sense of privacy if they don't wish to give it. It does not make you a good parent to demand it even if you may or may not know how to solve their problem. By the same token, you don't owe your child emotional asylum. It makes you a good parent to offer it in discretion whether or not they seek it, but you cannot demand that they use it, nor should you try to demand it in front of others. That's basically one of the surefire ways to ensure that your child will never seek that emotional asylum.
Emotions are intensely private and individual to each person. Many people go through the same emotions, but often for very different reasons, while simultaneously approaching their emotions in varying ways. Some are okay talking to others by virtue of them asking what's wrong. Others, like me, need to feel like we can trust you completely before we're willing to tell you much. Trust like that is not created by virtue of being a parent. It's earned by being there, being understanding, and knowing that your experience only means so much when it comes to someone else's subjective experience of the world. You don't have all the answers just because you're older or just because you solved your own problems or even just because you've managed to solve other peoples' problems. Your ways may have worked for you or some others, but they may not for someone else. That's the complication with every human being having different chemical balances in their brain.
When in doubt, offer asylum and drop the subject. That's how you build trust.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)