This is maybe a little too related to my post waaaaaay back on the Constitution, but you'll have to bear with me because I'm pissed right now.
Okay, so for those of you who don't know, I'm a Redditor. I have my own reasons for it, and I find it to be a valuable resource for me more often than not. Recently, Reddit exploded over some free speech jazz. Gawker, a news site, recently published an article about a Redditor I'd heard in whispers and rumors, violentacrez.
http://gawker.com/5950981/unmasking-reddits-violentacrez-the-biggest-troll-on-the-web
violentacrez was basically a professional asshole in his spare time. He's the kind of person that tried to make Reddit more like 4chan- full of the kind of porn that makes most people uneasy, violent racism, aggressive sexism, borderline illegal photos, and definitely illegal photos.
Picsofdeadkids
Beatingwomen
Misogyny
Racism
Jailbait
These are the kinds of subreddits that this gentleman created and presided over. Reddit saw violentacrez as an internet hero, championing free speech and fighting censorship. The mods and admins of Reddit came to be friends with this fellow. Anyway, there's the exposition.
So Gawker released his name along with an article detailing the author's conversation with this man. Reddit responded by banning links to Gawker or affiliated sites (there are plenty of them and some are very popular).
Now I just want to take a minute and revel in the complete and total irony that encompasses this situation.
Reddit (the bastion of free speech and anti-censorship that hosted violentacrez's material) is actively censoring a journalistic website for violating the privacy of violentacrez, a man known for moderating over both the subreddits, "Jailbait" and "Creepshots" (voyeur subreddit) using Reddit's anti-censorship stance as a means for getting away with the stuff he was posting.
That.... baffles me.
Listen, if you're on the internet, you have some anonymity, this is true. However, there are ways around anonymity, particularly if you give your personal information out (he did), or if you do anything illegal. However, I actually have a problem with this system. Strict anonymity is a privileged expectation that I'm not okay with- it takes oversight out of the internet. I'm a fan of free speech, and I do think the internet is malevolent as a group. They gang up and attack people, often unjustly. To those ends, it would be insane to require personal information linked directly to our "usernames." However, there needs to be some system in place for allowing consequences.
The one big, huge, vast difference I see between the internet and the real world right now is a lack of accountability. A lack of consequences administered to people, because people on the internet have artificial names that they can delete or add at the drop of a hat. Not necessarily bad. One of the things I like about Reddit is that if there's a sensitive topic, you can create a throwaway account solely to tell your story without fear of backlash or having your Reddit history sprawled out by some investigator. However, I don't think this anonymity should extend to all conversations. People need to be reminded that there are consequences for your actions and what you post.
As it stands, you have a right to post whatever you want, so long as it's not illegal. However, places like Reddit are also trying to guarantee you the right to be anonymous while doing it (not a constitutional right this time). The reality is what Gawker has done- you're not fully anonymous. And there are consequences for what you post sometimes.
The internet should be a bastion of free speech in the same way that the street is. If your boss finds out you're showing Polaroids of voyeur pictures in the street, yeah, you better believe your job might be at risk. The same should apply to the internet. The internet doesn't give you a fucking free pass to say and do whatever you want without thinking first!
As a bit of a troll myself, I have appreciation for people who occasionally troll. I probably shouldn't. I don't think trolling adds anything of value to the world, but there are some trolls I find amusing. However, to say something solely because it will offend people is an unimaginative troll. And sometimes detrimental too! Creating a forum called "Racism"? You're just drawing in people to a safe haven for regressive and cruel thoughts/statements. Again, these people have a right to be regressive and dumb, but they ought to be accountable for those statements as well.
Gah, I'm just going in circles now. Sorry, I'm just extremely angry about this perception people have that they deserve to be anonymous regardless of the content of their messages.
TL;DR - Some 49 year olds need to grow the hell up.
-
Waddles
Monday, October 15, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Guilt
After some much needed dog therapy, and then some unneeded VP debate rage, I decided to do a post about guilt in our society.
This is one of those societal norms that I think isn't really paid due attention, even in academia, really.
We guilt trip and shame each other for so so many... completely illogical things. Let's go down a list, shall we?
Sex: If you have sex, prepare for the slut shaming of your life. Because satisfying bodily desires is a problem. Unless that bodily desire is to eat an entire bucket of ice cream, because then you'd be the prototypical female according to our hilarious media. Not only enacting it, even talking about it is cause for shame and judgment. Lordy forbid we talk about masturbation like big kids (I even hesitated at typing the world for a second, thanks to prolific acculturation of sex being "bad"). And don't even think about having a mature conversation with your significant other about what each of you wants and needs physically in a relationship. That shit is downright wrong in our society.
Speaking your mind: This one's great-
If you're young, you're too inexperienced for your opinion to hold sway.
If you're old, you're too stuck in your ways.
No one wants to hear your opinions unless they're explicitly asked for- otherwise, it's "mind your own business." People are allowed to say whatever dumbass thing they want, but as soon as someone can come along and fact check them, the fact checker is being a big ol' problem.
Criticizing:
Along with the last point in speaking your mind, you're simply not allowed to criticize someone if they don't ask for criticism. Doesn't matter if someone's beating their kids, drinking themselves to death, smoking three packs a day, doing meth, maxing out their credit card every month without paying it back, sabotaging their own relationship, cheating on their partner, cheating on their taxes, stealing, lying, being extremely unhygienic having any unhealthy addiction, etc.
Now, with some circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to expect privacy. Typically, when your "problem" doesn't affect anyone else and when the detrimental affects on you are negligible or arguable. And, of course, when your "problem" is subjective.
It's tricky territory, to be sure, but instead of parsing out the gray area, we've taken to generalizing all criticism as unwarranted and offensive, even to the point that calling out someone for lying is cause for the response, "who do you think you are?"
Stepping in: When you stop a bully from hurting someone else or even yourself, we have this lovely system set up where in many places (the number is shrinking, thankfully), you get in trouble as well. We also have an entire narrative about "tattling" being a reprehensible activity, often times viewed as negatively as the crime being "tattled" on.
You know what we call "tattling" when we enter the professional world? Whistleblowing. The odd thing is, whistleblowing used to be seen as an incredibly honorable way to lose your job and being untrustworthy. We even had laws protecting whistleblowers! Now, we deliberately attack them and demonize their behavior in the same sort of way that we punish kids for trying to prevent bullying on their own. What the absolute hell?!
Similarly, if you see or hear about any kind of abuse, the first thing most people will say is "mind your own business."
We have this perpetual fear that we're not exclusively worrying about ourselves, that we refuse to even try to abate societal dangers and problems unless they reach a certain threshold. And evidently, assault is not beyond that threshold...
Being yourself:
Who the hell do you think you are? Having your own opinions, hobbies, and friends?
"My way or the highway" is the phrase I think of with this. Your parents say it, your bosses say it, and, in less eloquent wording, your peers say it. We instantly respect those who follow in our footsteps or the footsteps that we too are following. Deviation from these steps is met with harsh glares and enough disdain to feed a family.
So many parents raise their kids to fulfill their failed hopes and dreams, it's unreal.
Being someone else:
Who the hell do you think you are? Wasting your life chasing after someone else's dream?
Every musician, poet, and advocate of liberal arts, intellectualism, or hipsterism seems to have the same message- forge your own path or else your life is meaningless. What about the people who aren't creative enough to find their own place in history? What about those who aren't yet comfortable diving out of the line and creating a personal identity on the spot?
Sure, in the end it would be nice if everyone found themselves someday, but there are plenty of people who just aren't that passionate about individuality.
Being smart (and/or going to college):
The current right-wing narrative. Intellectualism is bad. And shame on you for thinking that being more educated means you know more than someone else! The nerve of some people. This one straight-up baffles me. I have no idea how a person can stand there and denounce people who want to learn more as being somehow inferior to those who are content not pursuing more education. Especially in the realm of politics, where knowing things is generally good.
"What, now you're too good for us, is that it?"
Not going to college:
And some of those right-wingers are the same parents in this section who demand that you go to college, regardless what you actually want to do with life. And shame on you if you don't want to be a doctor, since that's the only profession known to man that is respectable anymore apparently. Corporations look down on you (if they look at you at all), and your family will think less of you if you don't go to college.
"What, you're not good enough for college, is that it?"
Having feelings:
Nothing like a male who has emotions. A symbol for everyone to hate. Peers, corporations, politicians. You keep that shit inside where it belongs until it festers out of control and erupts in a boiling ulcer causing you to wig out and kill three co-workers with the breakroom spatula.
And if you're a female? You're allowed to have feelings, but good luck finding anyone to share them with. Once you're married, you're not allowed to have friends and your husband sure as hell doesn't want to hear about those pesky feelings. In short: let's all be robots.
Having preferences:
You like reading/video games/board games/exercise/sports/acting/painting/any other hobby? God, you're weird.
You don't like the same foods that I do? That's inconceivable. You must have just never tried the foods properly, that's it.
You don't like rap? Aw man, you just haven't heard this song.
You're not an atheist? Shit, you just haven't thought about it enough!
And so on.
Being an extrovert:
Annoying. Whore/man-whore. Loud.
Being an introvert:
Creepy. Creepy. Creepy.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea by this point.
We shame people for being different from each other and from ourselves. We shame people for doing the right things. We shame people for making us think and forcing us to experience the wild discomfort outside of the personal bubbles that we've formed around ourselves. Maybe it's not their place to make us travel outside the bubble. But it's no longer our right to stay in the bubble once it starts affecting anyone but ourselves. Kids, friends, neighbors, acquaintances. Once your narrow view of the world starts infecting someone else, you've given up your right to hide from scrutiny.
See what I'm doing here?
I'm shaming them. For shaming others.
It's like there's a theme here... or something...
____________________________________________
As accurately pointed out to me:
"Actually women get to feel guilt and shame about the ice cream too. About as much as the sex; if we're having straight sex, we're still pleasing some man, so that's all right, but if we eat a whole tub of ice cream we are fat and self-indulgent and no one will ever love us."
This is one of those societal norms that I think isn't really paid due attention, even in academia, really.
We guilt trip and shame each other for so so many... completely illogical things. Let's go down a list, shall we?
Sex: If you have sex, prepare for the slut shaming of your life. Because satisfying bodily desires is a problem. Unless that bodily desire is to eat an entire bucket of ice cream, because then you'd be the prototypical female according to our hilarious media. Not only enacting it, even talking about it is cause for shame and judgment. Lordy forbid we talk about masturbation like big kids (I even hesitated at typing the world for a second, thanks to prolific acculturation of sex being "bad"). And don't even think about having a mature conversation with your significant other about what each of you wants and needs physically in a relationship. That shit is downright wrong in our society.
Speaking your mind: This one's great-
If you're young, you're too inexperienced for your opinion to hold sway.
If you're old, you're too stuck in your ways.
No one wants to hear your opinions unless they're explicitly asked for- otherwise, it's "mind your own business." People are allowed to say whatever dumbass thing they want, but as soon as someone can come along and fact check them, the fact checker is being a big ol' problem.
Criticizing:
Along with the last point in speaking your mind, you're simply not allowed to criticize someone if they don't ask for criticism. Doesn't matter if someone's beating their kids, drinking themselves to death, smoking three packs a day, doing meth, maxing out their credit card every month without paying it back, sabotaging their own relationship, cheating on their partner, cheating on their taxes, stealing, lying, being extremely unhygienic having any unhealthy addiction, etc.
Now, with some circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable to expect privacy. Typically, when your "problem" doesn't affect anyone else and when the detrimental affects on you are negligible or arguable. And, of course, when your "problem" is subjective.
It's tricky territory, to be sure, but instead of parsing out the gray area, we've taken to generalizing all criticism as unwarranted and offensive, even to the point that calling out someone for lying is cause for the response, "who do you think you are?"
Stepping in: When you stop a bully from hurting someone else or even yourself, we have this lovely system set up where in many places (the number is shrinking, thankfully), you get in trouble as well. We also have an entire narrative about "tattling" being a reprehensible activity, often times viewed as negatively as the crime being "tattled" on.
You know what we call "tattling" when we enter the professional world? Whistleblowing. The odd thing is, whistleblowing used to be seen as an incredibly honorable way to lose your job and being untrustworthy. We even had laws protecting whistleblowers! Now, we deliberately attack them and demonize their behavior in the same sort of way that we punish kids for trying to prevent bullying on their own. What the absolute hell?!
Similarly, if you see or hear about any kind of abuse, the first thing most people will say is "mind your own business."
We have this perpetual fear that we're not exclusively worrying about ourselves, that we refuse to even try to abate societal dangers and problems unless they reach a certain threshold. And evidently, assault is not beyond that threshold...
Being yourself:
Who the hell do you think you are? Having your own opinions, hobbies, and friends?
"My way or the highway" is the phrase I think of with this. Your parents say it, your bosses say it, and, in less eloquent wording, your peers say it. We instantly respect those who follow in our footsteps or the footsteps that we too are following. Deviation from these steps is met with harsh glares and enough disdain to feed a family.
So many parents raise their kids to fulfill their failed hopes and dreams, it's unreal.
Being someone else:
Who the hell do you think you are? Wasting your life chasing after someone else's dream?
Every musician, poet, and advocate of liberal arts, intellectualism, or hipsterism seems to have the same message- forge your own path or else your life is meaningless. What about the people who aren't creative enough to find their own place in history? What about those who aren't yet comfortable diving out of the line and creating a personal identity on the spot?
Sure, in the end it would be nice if everyone found themselves someday, but there are plenty of people who just aren't that passionate about individuality.
Being smart (and/or going to college):
The current right-wing narrative. Intellectualism is bad. And shame on you for thinking that being more educated means you know more than someone else! The nerve of some people. This one straight-up baffles me. I have no idea how a person can stand there and denounce people who want to learn more as being somehow inferior to those who are content not pursuing more education. Especially in the realm of politics, where knowing things is generally good.
"What, now you're too good for us, is that it?"
Not going to college:
And some of those right-wingers are the same parents in this section who demand that you go to college, regardless what you actually want to do with life. And shame on you if you don't want to be a doctor, since that's the only profession known to man that is respectable anymore apparently. Corporations look down on you (if they look at you at all), and your family will think less of you if you don't go to college.
"What, you're not good enough for college, is that it?"
Having feelings:
Nothing like a male who has emotions. A symbol for everyone to hate. Peers, corporations, politicians. You keep that shit inside where it belongs until it festers out of control and erupts in a boiling ulcer causing you to wig out and kill three co-workers with the breakroom spatula.
And if you're a female? You're allowed to have feelings, but good luck finding anyone to share them with. Once you're married, you're not allowed to have friends and your husband sure as hell doesn't want to hear about those pesky feelings. In short: let's all be robots.
Having preferences:
You like reading/video games/board games/exercise/sports/acting/painting/any other hobby? God, you're weird.
You don't like the same foods that I do? That's inconceivable. You must have just never tried the foods properly, that's it.
You don't like rap? Aw man, you just haven't heard this song.
You're not an atheist? Shit, you just haven't thought about it enough!
And so on.
Being an extrovert:
Annoying. Whore/man-whore. Loud.
Being an introvert:
Creepy. Creepy. Creepy.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea by this point.
We shame people for being different from each other and from ourselves. We shame people for doing the right things. We shame people for making us think and forcing us to experience the wild discomfort outside of the personal bubbles that we've formed around ourselves. Maybe it's not their place to make us travel outside the bubble. But it's no longer our right to stay in the bubble once it starts affecting anyone but ourselves. Kids, friends, neighbors, acquaintances. Once your narrow view of the world starts infecting someone else, you've given up your right to hide from scrutiny.
See what I'm doing here?
I'm shaming them. For shaming others.
It's like there's a theme here... or something...
____________________________________________
As accurately pointed out to me:
"Actually women get to feel guilt and shame about the ice cream too. About as much as the sex; if we're having straight sex, we're still pleasing some man, so that's all right, but if we eat a whole tub of ice cream we are fat and self-indulgent and no one will ever love us."
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Ohhhh God, feminism...
Preface:
This post is rage-induced. However, I would deeply appreciate an actual conversation on the issue, and I welcome comments, concerns, and/or questions through blog responses, facebook messages, or even wall posts. I don't want to pretend that I alone have the "end all" answer to anything, and it's important to understand that while I may be stubborn and argumentative, I am capable of lacking in knowledge as well.
_________________________________________
Okay, so this has been an issue bubbling up and around Reddit for a long time, and every time it shows up where I'm subscribed, my position is discounted and I'm seen as part of the problem.
To give you some backstory, there's a forum on Reddit called "Men's Rights." This group is, to be honest, mostly reactionary people looking for a reason to point at feminism and yell about them feeling entitled or some such nonsense. However, MR often brings very necessary reminders to our perceptual lenses- the reminders that our gender dichotomy is not an issue of womens' rights. It's an issue of gender inequality. These posts include points about false rape claims, domestic abuse charges, parenting, trust, societal bias, and the ever-present problem of the myth of masculinity itself.
Every once in a while, I'll come across a post about feminism that disparages the MR group for the initial reason I cited; many are jerks who misunderstand the point of the MR group. However, they generalize the statement across the board against all MRers. My response is always puzzled and concerned, because the way I see it, they're doing the exact same thing on the other side. Let's look at the very words we're using:
"Feminism"
"Men's Rights"
We're talking about gender problems, and we're trying to exclude an entire gender.
Yes, let's get it out of the way- women face far more societal inequality than men. There's no question about that. Am I discounting it? No- it's incredibly important. However, my point is that it's reckless and problematic to focus on it to such an extent that we forget about the problems facing humanity as a result of the gender dichotomy.
Let's examine a popular one- Men who excel in business are thrifty and wise, while women are bitchy and demanding. Men are encouraged to be CEOs with business ambition, and women are not.
This overall problem leads to:
Women
Lower wages
Lower job satisfaction
Lower job opportunities
Lower job ceiling and often a lower job floor
Societal insults and pressures
among other things.
Men
The expectation to be ambitious
The false dichotomy that if you're not, you're weak
Being forced into an unhealthy male dominated world of business
Being raised to value the importance of money over emotion
Getting trapped into workaholism
etc.
Now, yes, the situation, I would say, is pretty heavily biased towards women having the more raw deal, however, my point is that both parties are stuck regardless of what they want, which causes deep issues for both sides. As a psychology buff, I won't neglect the immense damage that can be caused by a person being trained all his life to believe an ideal about money and business only to find that he hates that life.
This gender dichotomy affects many issues that we don't talk about enough. The dichotomy causes psychological bullying among girls and physical bullying among boys. It causes eating disorders among females and violence among males. It causes hopelessness in women and stress-filled expectations for men.
This is not an issue of "feminism" and it is not an issue of "men's rights." This is an issue of gender inequality. There is so much to lose and so much to gain for both sides that we shouldn't label them as "sides," we should call it what it is- "humankind."
So often I see thrown around the word, "misogyny" to people who just want to point out that the problem extends beyond women. It discredits their own position and makes me think that they're not examining the problem from any perspective other than their own- which can be good, but it's a double-edged sword. Personal perspective is informative and emotional, but it lacks a sense of big-picture perspective, and it vehemently avoids challenges to your logic, even when those challenges are rightly deserved.
This is a confusing, complicated problem, and we cannot afford to approach it only from a single angle.
We cannot simply "raise" women up to the standing of men. Nor can we "lower" men to the standing of women. Both ideas are insulting and belie a total misunderstanding of the issues at the heart.
If we raise women up to where men are, suddenly, women have no maternal leave for parenting, women are thrown into jail as often as men, and women inherit this lovely statistic:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm
More violent crimes have always been committed against men than women. This covers the vast array of violent crimes available. While domestic abuse remains largely centered around the female victims, abuse in general (a less-discussed problem) is centered more around males. This is particularly true when we examine prison violence and issues of bullying.
I would also like to note that finding that site was nearly impossible through google since nearly every hit was about domestic abuse towards either men or women, and no one seemed interested in plain ol' everyday vanilla abuse.
So- in ending here, I want to be absolutely clear. I am not suggesting the issues caused by the gender dichotomy are more important for men OR women. I am not suggesting the issues caused are more numerous for men (they're not).
What I am suggesting is that ignoring an entire gender's problems caused by the same dumbass societal illness is effectively ignoring the problem itself. If raise women up to the status of men, we're going to cause just as many problems as we're going to solve. We need to actively deconstruct the "status" of both men and women such that there are no expectations left at all. Once that is complete, we can lump both genders together before rebuilding the foundations of how we understand gender. Only then will there be true equality.
-
Waddles
I don't normally get many messages. Let's see how much hate mail I get for this...
This post is rage-induced. However, I would deeply appreciate an actual conversation on the issue, and I welcome comments, concerns, and/or questions through blog responses, facebook messages, or even wall posts. I don't want to pretend that I alone have the "end all" answer to anything, and it's important to understand that while I may be stubborn and argumentative, I am capable of lacking in knowledge as well.
_________________________________________
Okay, so this has been an issue bubbling up and around Reddit for a long time, and every time it shows up where I'm subscribed, my position is discounted and I'm seen as part of the problem.
To give you some backstory, there's a forum on Reddit called "Men's Rights." This group is, to be honest, mostly reactionary people looking for a reason to point at feminism and yell about them feeling entitled or some such nonsense. However, MR often brings very necessary reminders to our perceptual lenses- the reminders that our gender dichotomy is not an issue of womens' rights. It's an issue of gender inequality. These posts include points about false rape claims, domestic abuse charges, parenting, trust, societal bias, and the ever-present problem of the myth of masculinity itself.
Every once in a while, I'll come across a post about feminism that disparages the MR group for the initial reason I cited; many are jerks who misunderstand the point of the MR group. However, they generalize the statement across the board against all MRers. My response is always puzzled and concerned, because the way I see it, they're doing the exact same thing on the other side. Let's look at the very words we're using:
"Feminism"
"Men's Rights"
We're talking about gender problems, and we're trying to exclude an entire gender.
Yes, let's get it out of the way- women face far more societal inequality than men. There's no question about that. Am I discounting it? No- it's incredibly important. However, my point is that it's reckless and problematic to focus on it to such an extent that we forget about the problems facing humanity as a result of the gender dichotomy.
Let's examine a popular one- Men who excel in business are thrifty and wise, while women are bitchy and demanding. Men are encouraged to be CEOs with business ambition, and women are not.
This overall problem leads to:
Women
Lower wages
Lower job satisfaction
Lower job opportunities
Lower job ceiling and often a lower job floor
Societal insults and pressures
among other things.
Men
The expectation to be ambitious
The false dichotomy that if you're not, you're weak
Being forced into an unhealthy male dominated world of business
Being raised to value the importance of money over emotion
Getting trapped into workaholism
etc.
Now, yes, the situation, I would say, is pretty heavily biased towards women having the more raw deal, however, my point is that both parties are stuck regardless of what they want, which causes deep issues for both sides. As a psychology buff, I won't neglect the immense damage that can be caused by a person being trained all his life to believe an ideal about money and business only to find that he hates that life.
This gender dichotomy affects many issues that we don't talk about enough. The dichotomy causes psychological bullying among girls and physical bullying among boys. It causes eating disorders among females and violence among males. It causes hopelessness in women and stress-filled expectations for men.
This is not an issue of "feminism" and it is not an issue of "men's rights." This is an issue of gender inequality. There is so much to lose and so much to gain for both sides that we shouldn't label them as "sides," we should call it what it is- "humankind."
So often I see thrown around the word, "misogyny" to people who just want to point out that the problem extends beyond women. It discredits their own position and makes me think that they're not examining the problem from any perspective other than their own- which can be good, but it's a double-edged sword. Personal perspective is informative and emotional, but it lacks a sense of big-picture perspective, and it vehemently avoids challenges to your logic, even when those challenges are rightly deserved.
This is a confusing, complicated problem, and we cannot afford to approach it only from a single angle.
We cannot simply "raise" women up to the standing of men. Nor can we "lower" men to the standing of women. Both ideas are insulting and belie a total misunderstanding of the issues at the heart.
If we raise women up to where men are, suddenly, women have no maternal leave for parenting, women are thrown into jail as often as men, and women inherit this lovely statistic:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/vsxtab.cfm
More violent crimes have always been committed against men than women. This covers the vast array of violent crimes available. While domestic abuse remains largely centered around the female victims, abuse in general (a less-discussed problem) is centered more around males. This is particularly true when we examine prison violence and issues of bullying.
I would also like to note that finding that site was nearly impossible through google since nearly every hit was about domestic abuse towards either men or women, and no one seemed interested in plain ol' everyday vanilla abuse.
So- in ending here, I want to be absolutely clear. I am not suggesting the issues caused by the gender dichotomy are more important for men OR women. I am not suggesting the issues caused are more numerous for men (they're not).
What I am suggesting is that ignoring an entire gender's problems caused by the same dumbass societal illness is effectively ignoring the problem itself. If raise women up to the status of men, we're going to cause just as many problems as we're going to solve. We need to actively deconstruct the "status" of both men and women such that there are no expectations left at all. Once that is complete, we can lump both genders together before rebuilding the foundations of how we understand gender. Only then will there be true equality.
-
Waddles
I don't normally get many messages. Let's see how much hate mail I get for this...
Monday, October 8, 2012
Arguing
This wasn't brought on by a personal circumstance, but rather, something I was reading that happened to some other people, however, I've faced numerous similar situations, and I feel it's a good thing to talk about.
"Why do you always have to be right?"
A question for the frustrated who don't really stop to think about what they're asking.
When you start an argument- a friendly debate- or an uncivil disagreement with someone, you are "right." That is your main stance. That is part of your thesis.
You're trying to make the argument that you are correct, or at the very least, that your opponent is either not correct, not approaching the issue properly, or missing some key points in the conclusion.
You don't argue with someone with the premise that you're not correct right off the bat (unless you're playing devil's advocate for a position you disagree with). If you end a disagreement with this line, you're openly announcing your hypocrisy and your inability to handle being wrong.
Here's something a lot of people who don't argue much don't often empathize with relating to seasoned argument-lovers:
We don't often stick our necks out into a debate that we don't have a pretty firm grasp on. If you say something contentious that we aren't knee-deep in, we usually don't respond in an argumentative way (unless what you're saying is truly outlandish).
The reason it appears that argumentative people are so thoroughly stubborn and intellectually elitist is that we (I speak for those that follow this rule) argue what we're familiar with. Things that we have a decent collection of knowledge regarding.
We "have" to be right because we pick our battles to be ones that we actively judge to be "winnable."
What I notice (and this is purely my subjective experience, so take it with a helping of salt) of people who are not familiar with argumentation is that they are prone to repeating second-hand knowledge- something that they heard from another source- and taking it at face value.
Now let me stop here to say- humans like to impress each other. Physically, cognitively, emotionally- we just like surprising people or creating genuine reactions in them. There's something pleasant about the experience of invoking those types of emotions in others, and that's not bad at all.
However, if you plan on impressing someone with your vague knowledge of topic X, you'd better be sure that either:
A. You understand your knowledge is secondhand and unchecked at best
B. You could totally be wrong about this kernel of knowledge you just picked up
C. You've checked it out yourself and you know some background information to the knowledge.
Yeah, I know, it seems like homework tacked onto a normal human interaction meant to liven up that whole... living thing. But if you have unchecked information that you take to like a hawk, you're just going to make yourself feel foolish and you're going to get into a stubborn argument with someone who very well may be far more familiar with the topic than you.
For those arguments that are truly about subjective material, the previous rules only barely apply if at all. If someone's being stubborn about their totally subjective opinion, chances are you're also being stubborn about it, but you're not realizing it. Try to remember that people will never fully share opinions.
However, if the topic is in a murky-ish territory, like those that involve religion as a basis for an opinion, make sure to use available evidence at your disposal, and if nothing else, the best way to end an argument is to simply prove that your opponent's philosophy is inconsistent. Is what they're saying contrary to a similar opinion? Is it contrary to their actions? Is it contrary to actual known religious dogma? Is it contrary to religious script? If any were answered "yes," then they have no stance to argue from, and you're free to nudge them while they fall to the ground, arms flailing wildly.
Debate what you know, not what you think you know.
(We're all guilty of breaking these from time to time. Just try to catch yourself before you fall into any of these traps)
(For instance, I often pick battles that are not necessarily in my favor just because I like debating. This, however, I safely do with my close friends)
Side note: I use the word "win" even though I do not believe that the true reason for debate or argumentation is winning or a matter of pride or anything as superficial as that. Argumentation:
A. Is fun exercise for the brain
B. Helps you to figure out just how much you understand about a topic
C. Trains you to debate better in the future
D. Imparts knowledge and promotes understanding on a topic
"We don't like people making baseless, asinine arguments or accusations, YET, when we demonstrate (in detail) to people how they're wrong (usually in situations that more/less warrant a rebuttal) we are attacked with ad hominem, emotional knee-jerk bullshit, and further accusations (usually completely hypocritical)."
-Some guy on Reddit
-
Waddles
(This post was written on Saturday)
Now quick, everyone call me a pretentious douche!
I've already gone out of my way to ruin my life in 48 hours.
"Why do you always have to be right?"
A question for the frustrated who don't really stop to think about what they're asking.
When you start an argument- a friendly debate- or an uncivil disagreement with someone, you are "right." That is your main stance. That is part of your thesis.
You're trying to make the argument that you are correct, or at the very least, that your opponent is either not correct, not approaching the issue properly, or missing some key points in the conclusion.
You don't argue with someone with the premise that you're not correct right off the bat (unless you're playing devil's advocate for a position you disagree with). If you end a disagreement with this line, you're openly announcing your hypocrisy and your inability to handle being wrong.
Here's something a lot of people who don't argue much don't often empathize with relating to seasoned argument-lovers:
We don't often stick our necks out into a debate that we don't have a pretty firm grasp on. If you say something contentious that we aren't knee-deep in, we usually don't respond in an argumentative way (unless what you're saying is truly outlandish).
The reason it appears that argumentative people are so thoroughly stubborn and intellectually elitist is that we (I speak for those that follow this rule) argue what we're familiar with. Things that we have a decent collection of knowledge regarding.
We "have" to be right because we pick our battles to be ones that we actively judge to be "winnable."
What I notice (and this is purely my subjective experience, so take it with a helping of salt) of people who are not familiar with argumentation is that they are prone to repeating second-hand knowledge- something that they heard from another source- and taking it at face value.
Now let me stop here to say- humans like to impress each other. Physically, cognitively, emotionally- we just like surprising people or creating genuine reactions in them. There's something pleasant about the experience of invoking those types of emotions in others, and that's not bad at all.
However, if you plan on impressing someone with your vague knowledge of topic X, you'd better be sure that either:
A. You understand your knowledge is secondhand and unchecked at best
B. You could totally be wrong about this kernel of knowledge you just picked up
C. You've checked it out yourself and you know some background information to the knowledge.
Yeah, I know, it seems like homework tacked onto a normal human interaction meant to liven up that whole... living thing. But if you have unchecked information that you take to like a hawk, you're just going to make yourself feel foolish and you're going to get into a stubborn argument with someone who very well may be far more familiar with the topic than you.
For those arguments that are truly about subjective material, the previous rules only barely apply if at all. If someone's being stubborn about their totally subjective opinion, chances are you're also being stubborn about it, but you're not realizing it. Try to remember that people will never fully share opinions.
However, if the topic is in a murky-ish territory, like those that involve religion as a basis for an opinion, make sure to use available evidence at your disposal, and if nothing else, the best way to end an argument is to simply prove that your opponent's philosophy is inconsistent. Is what they're saying contrary to a similar opinion? Is it contrary to their actions? Is it contrary to actual known religious dogma? Is it contrary to religious script? If any were answered "yes," then they have no stance to argue from, and you're free to nudge them while they fall to the ground, arms flailing wildly.
Debate what you know, not what you think you know.
(We're all guilty of breaking these from time to time. Just try to catch yourself before you fall into any of these traps)
(For instance, I often pick battles that are not necessarily in my favor just because I like debating. This, however, I safely do with my close friends)
Side note: I use the word "win" even though I do not believe that the true reason for debate or argumentation is winning or a matter of pride or anything as superficial as that. Argumentation:
A. Is fun exercise for the brain
B. Helps you to figure out just how much you understand about a topic
C. Trains you to debate better in the future
D. Imparts knowledge and promotes understanding on a topic
"We don't like people making baseless, asinine arguments or accusations, YET, when we demonstrate (in detail) to people how they're wrong (usually in situations that more/less warrant a rebuttal) we are attacked with ad hominem, emotional knee-jerk bullshit, and further accusations (usually completely hypocritical)."
-Some guy on Reddit
-
Waddles
(This post was written on Saturday)
Now quick, everyone call me a pretentious douche!
I've already gone out of my way to ruin my life in 48 hours.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Regularity
Okay, heading down a bit of a personal path. This is something you may be able to relate with, or you may not. It's non-controversial in nature, so that may drive you away if you're looking for something political on this Friday
Humans are sort of built around regularity (most creatures are). However, ours has gotten to a point that the media, culture, and corporations have managed to convince us to live lives that are altered only in small degrees each day.
I find I'm both saved and ruined by this notion simultaneously.
Let me explain a bit, since I'm sure that sounds odd. I live far more easily when I don't have to make preferential choices about everything each day. Such a burden would drive me insane very quickly as I'm not the most decisive person. I eat the same few meals for lunch and dinner. I don't eat breakfast. I visit the same websites/forums each day, rarely straying from that. I engage in the same conversations, I rarely try new foods, I haven't simply gotten lost in what feels like ages. I've begun to stagnate.
This has done two things-
1. This has raised the amount that I can think and obsess about everything cognitive and emotional in my life, since I spend so few resources on anything else.
2. This has killed my ability or drive to experience new things and, therefore, my sense of wonderment.
Going back to a previous statement- I haven't gotten lost in any activity in longer than I care to admit. It's possible that my routined non-life is actually poisoning any remaining vestiges of passion that I have in my heart.
However, the routine is comfortable and safe. Of course, the obvious response is that safety and comfort isn't always what's best for a person, which is absolutely true. Somewhere along the lines, I forgot how to take any risks, and now I'm terrified to stop being comfortable.
It's not just a mildly anxiety-provoking thought anymore, I'm almost certain it's a full-on phobia.
I'm not even comfortable with the idea of taking the bus downtown. I like Lexington, and I like Transy. This fear hasn't prevented me from visiting all the time yet, but it's slowly getting there.
Things that normally seem fun in my life are gradually taking a grayscale look as the anxiety petrifies me.
The routine is actively destroying me. But I need some level of routine or else my energy is sapped far too quickly. I am still an introvert and I am still more of an observer than an enacting agent. I cannot effortlessly try new things or talk to people- these things may always consume more of my energy than I'd like. However, it's become obvious that a stable routine alone will do just as much damage as a total lack of routine and a life of spontaneity.
Finding balance is something Aristotle taught as the way towards being a virtuous human being. Take two opposing vices, find the middle-ground, and there you have a virtue (I'm screwing it up a bit, as I am wont to do with exact philosophical ideas).
Being lazy ----- Diligently working ------ Being obsessed with your work
Being stagnant ------ Cautiously adventurous(Here's where I should be) ------- Never slowing down
Being a glutton ------ Indulging judiciously ------- Starving yourself
You get the idea. Aristotle had a lot of progressive ideas about personal ethics and how to live. His conception of telos and eudaimonia for example. I'll get into those at a later time, I'm sure.
I just know that right now, I have to find a way to move into the middle ground or else I'm going to actually explode.
-
Waddles
EDIT: As corrected by my philosopher roommate, Aristotle vouched for the mean between two vices. It's not quite the middle ground, but rather, certain virtuous tendencies or aspects of two vices.
Subtle differences.
Humans are sort of built around regularity (most creatures are). However, ours has gotten to a point that the media, culture, and corporations have managed to convince us to live lives that are altered only in small degrees each day.
I find I'm both saved and ruined by this notion simultaneously.
Let me explain a bit, since I'm sure that sounds odd. I live far more easily when I don't have to make preferential choices about everything each day. Such a burden would drive me insane very quickly as I'm not the most decisive person. I eat the same few meals for lunch and dinner. I don't eat breakfast. I visit the same websites/forums each day, rarely straying from that. I engage in the same conversations, I rarely try new foods, I haven't simply gotten lost in what feels like ages. I've begun to stagnate.
This has done two things-
1. This has raised the amount that I can think and obsess about everything cognitive and emotional in my life, since I spend so few resources on anything else.
2. This has killed my ability or drive to experience new things and, therefore, my sense of wonderment.
Going back to a previous statement- I haven't gotten lost in any activity in longer than I care to admit. It's possible that my routined non-life is actually poisoning any remaining vestiges of passion that I have in my heart.
However, the routine is comfortable and safe. Of course, the obvious response is that safety and comfort isn't always what's best for a person, which is absolutely true. Somewhere along the lines, I forgot how to take any risks, and now I'm terrified to stop being comfortable.
It's not just a mildly anxiety-provoking thought anymore, I'm almost certain it's a full-on phobia.
I'm not even comfortable with the idea of taking the bus downtown. I like Lexington, and I like Transy. This fear hasn't prevented me from visiting all the time yet, but it's slowly getting there.
Things that normally seem fun in my life are gradually taking a grayscale look as the anxiety petrifies me.
The routine is actively destroying me. But I need some level of routine or else my energy is sapped far too quickly. I am still an introvert and I am still more of an observer than an enacting agent. I cannot effortlessly try new things or talk to people- these things may always consume more of my energy than I'd like. However, it's become obvious that a stable routine alone will do just as much damage as a total lack of routine and a life of spontaneity.
Finding balance is something Aristotle taught as the way towards being a virtuous human being. Take two opposing vices, find the middle-ground, and there you have a virtue (I'm screwing it up a bit, as I am wont to do with exact philosophical ideas).
Being lazy ----- Diligently working ------ Being obsessed with your work
Being stagnant ------ Cautiously adventurous(Here's where I should be) ------- Never slowing down
Being a glutton ------ Indulging judiciously ------- Starving yourself
You get the idea. Aristotle had a lot of progressive ideas about personal ethics and how to live. His conception of telos and eudaimonia for example. I'll get into those at a later time, I'm sure.
I just know that right now, I have to find a way to move into the middle ground or else I'm going to actually explode.
-
Waddles
EDIT: As corrected by my philosopher roommate, Aristotle vouched for the mean between two vices. It's not quite the middle ground, but rather, certain virtuous tendencies or aspects of two vices.
Subtle differences.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
The Debate!
The first debate is tonight.
Let's all pull out our drinking games and make a mockery of this tradition, which is already a mockery of its former self.
Presidential debates used to mean something, back when candidates spoke to each other and directly responded to points that mattered. But everything changed (when the fire nation attacked) when George Bush senior completely screwed up on a question in a live debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE
Clip of the question in question.
George Bush completely falls apart because he cannot relate to the American public. Simply put, the recession didn't affect him.
After this incident, debates became weaker each four-year period. They used to be a gladiator fight. Now they're kitten scratches. Very cute kittens.
Questions screened by both candidates. No personal interaction. A moderator agreed upon by both. Pre-written responses.
It's all phoned in.
However, the debates still afford us some important information.
The candidates may have pre-written responses and talking points, but the strength of those talking points is, as we may deduce, the strongest stuff they can muster.
So tonight, when we watch the debate and one of the candidates responds to a question by talking not about his own policies and ideas, but rather the "failed ideas of their opponent," then we know that they don't have a future plan worth talking about.
When one responds with an emotional appeal irrelevant to the question, we know they don't have an answer worth hearing.
Each pre-written logical fallacy is another point to note- another proof that no real message exists for us to find. No argument available for them.
Additionally, Politifact will be fact checking the debate live, so tune into their website to see what little substance is included in the debate torn to shreds on a truth-o-meter.
-
Waddles
Let's all pull out our drinking games and make a mockery of this tradition, which is already a mockery of its former self.
Presidential debates used to mean something, back when candidates spoke to each other and directly responded to points that mattered. But everything changed (when the fire nation attacked) when George Bush senior completely screwed up on a question in a live debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ffbFvKlWqE
Clip of the question in question.
George Bush completely falls apart because he cannot relate to the American public. Simply put, the recession didn't affect him.
After this incident, debates became weaker each four-year period. They used to be a gladiator fight. Now they're kitten scratches. Very cute kittens.
Questions screened by both candidates. No personal interaction. A moderator agreed upon by both. Pre-written responses.
It's all phoned in.
However, the debates still afford us some important information.
The candidates may have pre-written responses and talking points, but the strength of those talking points is, as we may deduce, the strongest stuff they can muster.
So tonight, when we watch the debate and one of the candidates responds to a question by talking not about his own policies and ideas, but rather the "failed ideas of their opponent," then we know that they don't have a future plan worth talking about.
When one responds with an emotional appeal irrelevant to the question, we know they don't have an answer worth hearing.
Each pre-written logical fallacy is another point to note- another proof that no real message exists for us to find. No argument available for them.
Additionally, Politifact will be fact checking the debate live, so tune into their website to see what little substance is included in the debate torn to shreds on a truth-o-meter.
-
Waddles
Monday, October 1, 2012
Another dud
To me three readers:
I apologize, but I've had another lapse in opinionated creativity.
Spending too much time obsessing over the anxiety-provoking reality that I have no plans for a future.
The world and reality are always up for a good fight, but some days, I'm just too tired to fight back. Hopefully, I'll have something a little more... substantive for you on Wednesday.
-
Waddles
I apologize, but I've had another lapse in opinionated creativity.
Spending too much time obsessing over the anxiety-provoking reality that I have no plans for a future.
The world and reality are always up for a good fight, but some days, I'm just too tired to fight back. Hopefully, I'll have something a little more... substantive for you on Wednesday.
-
Waddles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)