***Trigger Warning***
Alright, it's about time I address the enormous elephant in the room. Spurred on by unpleasant discourse with a friend and a less cordial creature, this post is going to be about the difficult world of perceiving someone as a threat when they have not actively threatened you.
Let me get some preliminary notes out of the way-
1. This isn't just about feminism and the default position some women keep that men are dangerous. This is about race. This is about religion. This is about discrimination in general.
2. I consider myself a "feminist," though I would like the term to shift to "egalitarian" within the decade.
3. Everyone is entitled to feel discomfort in any situation. Everyone is entitled to act as safely as they would like.
4. (This is important) Everyone is entitled to define "threatening" in any way they see fit. It is simply a depressing fact that what you perceive as threatening may not be what others perceive as threatening. Therefore, your reaction to something you perceive as threatening (whether or not it is intended as such) may cause an equal and opposite reaction in whomever it is you're dealing with.
5. My girlfriend and I recently had a discussion in which she remarked how discomforting it is to her when people compare race and gender issues, since they have significant distinctions between them. Unfortunately, that is exactly what I'm about to do for the context of this problem (Sorry, dear!).
I'd like to start off with some statistics, if I may~
Your odds of being robbed in the US in any given year are roughly 1/420. This is not consistent across gender, however.
Your odds of being robbed in the US in any given year as a male are roughly 1/300. If you're a female, it's almost 1/700. For males, that's about a 1/4 chance in their lives.
Odds almost completely consistently become less concerning as you get older. In your 20s-30s, you're in the most likely group for robbery.
However, let's just stick with the gender difference for now. As a male, you have something of a 1/3-1/4 chance of being robbed at some point in your life.
As a female, it's about doubled.
The odds that this person robbing you will be a stranger? About 70%.
http://www.bookofodds.com/content/view/full/678590
But what about the person robbing you? It's 8 times more likely that it's a black person than any other race. However, black people are 139 times more likely to commit a robbery than white people.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime#United_States
Now, I'd like us to step back and examine rape statistics.
First, however, I will qualify this by saying that my intention is NOT to compare these two crimes in terms of severity. I do not believe that it is fair, and I do believe that rape is a significantly more traumatizing crime.
That said, an American woman has about a 1/4 or 1/5 chance of being raped in her lifetime. The lower down the socio-economic ladder and the less white you are, the more likely you are to be a victim of sexual assault. Over half the reported rapes (It is crucial to note that this only covers reported rapes) are against women under the age of 18.
Over 60% of all rapes are perpetrated by a lover or someone well-known by the victim. Rape by a stranger constitutes just 4% of all rapes, while rape by acquaintance covers about 20%.
http://thehathorlegacy.com/rape-statistics/
The vast majority of rapes occur in someone's home. Typically, the victim's house or the perpetrator's house (both, if married).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#United_States
I'd like to parse some of this data, since it's not something we often think too much about.
You have a 1% chance of being raped by a stranger in your lifetime.
This means, on a year-to-year basis, it's going to be a bell curve that averages at .0125% chance of being raped by a stranger in any given year.
Where am I going with this? It's all very horrible and all, but what's the point I'm getting at here?
Well, if a stranger comes up to and means you ill will, there's almost a 20:1 ratio that he or she's just interested in your money or your watch. There's also an incredibly good chance that he or she isn't white.
So what do you do when you get into an elevator and a black man gets in with you alone? What if it's 4:00 AM? What if he sees you on your phone and asks, "Hey, is that the new iPhone? Do you mind if I see it?"
Put yourself in that scenario, if you would. Does it make you uncomfortable? Maybe. Again, we're all entitled to our discomforts. But doesn't it also feel just a bit racist? Somewhere deep down, are you scolding yourself for being uncomfortable by this polite man who hasn't actually threatened you?
The odds are sure higher that it's a situation that would end poorly for you than if it was a white woman who had walked into that elevator.
But does the existence of better odds make it more acceptable to assume something about this man? You might say yes, or you might say no. It's a difficult ethical question, to be sure, but I think we can all agree that assuming the man is more dangerous does nothing to help racial tensions.
What if, after the event, you posted about your encounter on Facebook and said, "black guys, don't do that."
Well, now it sounds really racist. And it doesn't just sound racist. It is racist.
You're ascribing value to the actions of everyone in a single group- in this case, a racial group, noting a negative value in an action performed by anyone in that group- but only that group.
When all you have to go on is statistical likelihood- specifically, the difference between "virtually zero," and "slightly closer to zero,"- then making a judgment claim is a bad idea.
Again- I'll stop here to remind you, I'm not telling you to trust everyone. I'm not telling you to walk across the street and to talk to the guy hanging out in that dark alley. I'm just noting that if someone approaches you, they're not likely to cause you harm in any way. It's worth reminding yourself that people aren't out to get you. Rather, it's a fraction of a percent of the entire population of the US causes problems. A fraction of a percent. To help you understand the concept more immediately, take a quarter and flip it.
Did you flip it?
Okay.
Now flip it 999 more times. Statistically, only a small handful of those flips were "criminals."
If you meet each person in your day, expecting them to be the criminal that you probably won't run into, then you're going to live a very fearful life. Not only that, but you're going to contribute to the stereotypes that give rise to racism and sexism. The inequalities in our society are caused not only by systemic occurrences, but by our very thoughts and perceptions.
Stereotype threat is the effect that allows women to do worse on science or math tests when they are reminded before taking the test that they are females. From a societal attitude that women cannot perform in math and science as well as men, it becomes a truth. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
If we see a black man in an elevator and we assume that he means to do us harm, then he will be more likely to internalize that.
I realize that this is a difficult area of discussion, particularly because there is statistical correlation between men and rape as well as black men and robbery. It is difficult to ignore statistics. Especially since, as academics, some of us are taught that statistics are the entirety of an argument. However, I remind you that the statistics we're examining are "virtually 0" and "slightly closer to/further from virtually 0."
Admittedly, there are factors that can greatly increase or decrease these statistics. However, since virtually everyone reading this post is middle class, those factors largely do not apply to us. Namely the biggest and most prevalent factor in crime - Being poor.
This post would be uncomfortably pragmatic if all three of my readers were from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. But, because we have the luxury of focusing on things other than immediate survival each and every day, I think it's important that we sit down and talk about these (and other) issues.
As discomforting and awkward as it is, by holding onto the prejudices we've been raised with, backed by statistics or not, we're perpetuating a culture of differentiation that is antithetical to the very ideals behind an egalitarian philosophy. Ideals about equality and love, togetherness and trust.
I'm not asking you to change your mind. I'm merely asking you to re-examine the rhetoric we use to assess danger from unknown people. Maybe next time you feel uncomfortable around someone without having justification, try creating a history for them in your mind. A history that would be more likely for one of the 99.9% of people who aren't violent criminals. Since statistically, that person probably falls under that category.
Be cautious. Don't take any unnecessary risks, and by no means should you trust someone you don't know right away. But, there's a very large distinction between treating someone with indifference versus treating them as an active and/or potential threat.
Really though- try to treat everyone as though they're a part of that 99.9% that just wants to be happy. Because they probably are.
-
Waddles
Alright, hit me. I know this is going to be controversial for some of you.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
The job of the teacher
Okay, here's something I haven't discussed.
I didn't think I would have to, but people are surprising me today.
For reference, this post arises from a criticism made of two professors at Transy who were up for tenure recently. Their promotion was deferred because they weren't academically published yet.
This has sparked lots of controversy and discussion on the relative duties of professors.
That discussion has pissed me off.
Why is there anyone who thinks that a professor's first priority shouldn't be imparting knowledge to students?
What world do you live in where it's more important for a professor to be furthering their own career than furthering the education of their students who depend on their teacher to be ready, enthusiastic, and helpful in their job?
That's the exact opposite of what we need in this society.
If you're not interested in teaching students, don't teach students.
And if you want professors you hire not to focus on students first, just quit your job, walk away, and find some nice hole in middle-management to crawl into and die.
It is unacceptable to treat students as a means to an end, whether by using them for their tuition money or by having their professors spend their precious hours on something totally unrelated to the educational process. The entire purpose of having these institutions is for the growth and preparation of the next generation of academics and workers.
As a country, how about we pay people to research. Or pay them to write.
If they don't want to teach, let's pay them to use their intellect in other useful realms instead of shoe-horning them into one career that requires both, regardless of which one they're actually interested in (or good at) Lumping all academics together as teachers and writers is just... Nonsensical and antithetical to serious educational processes.
What makes it even worse is that college professors don't have to take any sort of courses in education. So long as you have mastered your own area of study, you're allowed to teach students about that area and somewhat related areas. Even if you don't know the first thing about teaching.
Even if you're an awful teacher. There are some programs which require you to take a single, several-hour crash course on education. However, I'm not familiar with any program that requires you to have actual educational training in order to be able to teach college students.
Implicitly, there's an assumption going on that college students are smart enough to pick up the material even with a teacher who's lacking in that capacity, but that's an awful approach that relies on the students to teach themselves, at which point, we might as well not have the professors in the first place.
The future of our government, economy, labor, and academic pursuits all rest on new students getting a solid educational foundation from which they can pursue careers. If we're more focused on people who already have established careers, then we're doing an enormous disservice to those students and, ultimately, the country itself.
I can't believe it's even a question that has to be asked in this day and age.
Do we expect firefighters to also solve crimes in their spare time?
Is your manager also expected to be a therapist?
Do you want your doctor to teach yoga on the side?
Or wouldn't it just be nice if all those people could pay attention to their job without having to worry about the safety of their career relying on a separate and completely unrelated job?
Wouldn't it be great if their attention wasn't split between training our future workforce and writing for academic journals?
But hey, I'm no teacher, I'm no professor, and I don't have tenure.
This is 100% from the biased perspective of a recent student who hasn't experienced education from the other side.
I might be completely off. I know I'm friends with a few teachers/professors, what do you think?
-
Wad
I didn't think I would have to, but people are surprising me today.
For reference, this post arises from a criticism made of two professors at Transy who were up for tenure recently. Their promotion was deferred because they weren't academically published yet.
This has sparked lots of controversy and discussion on the relative duties of professors.
That discussion has pissed me off.
Why is there anyone who thinks that a professor's first priority shouldn't be imparting knowledge to students?
What world do you live in where it's more important for a professor to be furthering their own career than furthering the education of their students who depend on their teacher to be ready, enthusiastic, and helpful in their job?
That's the exact opposite of what we need in this society.
If you're not interested in teaching students, don't teach students.
And if you want professors you hire not to focus on students first, just quit your job, walk away, and find some nice hole in middle-management to crawl into and die.
It is unacceptable to treat students as a means to an end, whether by using them for their tuition money or by having their professors spend their precious hours on something totally unrelated to the educational process. The entire purpose of having these institutions is for the growth and preparation of the next generation of academics and workers.
As a country, how about we pay people to research. Or pay them to write.
If they don't want to teach, let's pay them to use their intellect in other useful realms instead of shoe-horning them into one career that requires both, regardless of which one they're actually interested in (or good at) Lumping all academics together as teachers and writers is just... Nonsensical and antithetical to serious educational processes.
What makes it even worse is that college professors don't have to take any sort of courses in education. So long as you have mastered your own area of study, you're allowed to teach students about that area and somewhat related areas. Even if you don't know the first thing about teaching.
Even if you're an awful teacher. There are some programs which require you to take a single, several-hour crash course on education. However, I'm not familiar with any program that requires you to have actual educational training in order to be able to teach college students.
Implicitly, there's an assumption going on that college students are smart enough to pick up the material even with a teacher who's lacking in that capacity, but that's an awful approach that relies on the students to teach themselves, at which point, we might as well not have the professors in the first place.
The future of our government, economy, labor, and academic pursuits all rest on new students getting a solid educational foundation from which they can pursue careers. If we're more focused on people who already have established careers, then we're doing an enormous disservice to those students and, ultimately, the country itself.
I can't believe it's even a question that has to be asked in this day and age.
Do we expect firefighters to also solve crimes in their spare time?
Is your manager also expected to be a therapist?
Do you want your doctor to teach yoga on the side?
Or wouldn't it just be nice if all those people could pay attention to their job without having to worry about the safety of their career relying on a separate and completely unrelated job?
Wouldn't it be great if their attention wasn't split between training our future workforce and writing for academic journals?
But hey, I'm no teacher, I'm no professor, and I don't have tenure.
This is 100% from the biased perspective of a recent student who hasn't experienced education from the other side.
I might be completely off. I know I'm friends with a few teachers/professors, what do you think?
-
Wad
Friday, March 15, 2013
Back to Controversy
I'm feeling pretty good. I'm feeling like I have some control right now, and I think doing some writing will help.
SO, I figure I'll jump in on the topic I wanted to post about right around the time I left- pedophilia, and sexuality in general.
To anyone who's followed this blog, you know I browse reddit. A lot of times the middle class white male college educated, liberally-leaning perspective is just nice to be around.
Other times, it sucks. Big time.
The topic of pedophilia comes up every once in a while on reddit. Someone will do an AMA (interview where anyone can ask questions) about how their spouse sexually abused their child, or occasionally, you'll see someone who actually has pedophilic desires do an AMA. The pure amount of animosity and general ignorance on the topic is just upsetting.
Let's start with the obvious statements:
1. I understand that touching children is wrong. Agency to commit and consent to complicated actions like that is not something children have. They can't be held accountable to contracts, they're tried different from adults in court, they're not capable of giving consent (except under specific circumstances), and they aren't allowed to be released from parental custody unless, again, specific circumstances are met. Point is- it's wrong to try to force that responsibility of agency onto them when they're not ready, and it's equally wrong to take the agency they have away from them.
No one is arguing otherwise. That's the first step to approaching this discussion.
2. No one is excusing their behavior. When you act on your impulses, you deserve the consequences, regardless of what they are. What this discussion aims to do is explain behavior and, more particularly, desires.
So starting this discussion, you may be uncomfortable with the idea of someone sexually wanting a child. It's not a comfortable thought- but here's a little exercise:
If you're reading this, chances are, you're a friend of mine and you're probably willing to agree that homosexuality is acceptable and more importantly, natural. The desire for another person of the same sex is natural in its own right. Now, are you interested in skinny guys or Muscles McGoo? Do you like dark hair or lighter hair? Do you want him to be protective or do you want him to respect your sense of individual ability? How about the sex? Do you have a preferred position? Is there something a woman can do that just turns you on? Is there just a thought that turns you on? Do you have any fetishes? Do you like light bondage? How about toys? Do you have any roleplay fantasies?
Now let me ask you this-- Could you change those preferences or desires? Would you change them?
Your answers to these questions are subjective across each person. But the essence of it is that your preferences and desires are not something you choose. It's more likely that you stumbled into them through personal exploration, sexual or otherwise, and you started going back to them when you liked what you found.
That is the heart of a fetish or a philia. In the case of pedophilia, we're dealing with a fetish that is socially, legally, and personally unacceptable. No one will talk to you about it, you're labeled as a monster even if you've never done anything, and the worst of it is that you can't change it no matter how much you want to.
To those of you who've had sex or some sort of sexual interaction that was meaningful- how would it feel to know that you could never have the kind of sexual interaction that you wanted. Ever? Imagine up the best sexual situation you can think of. The most romantic, the most passionate, the hottest- whatever you want. Now really get into that. Own it. Want it.
Now imagine it was literally impossible to do without hurting your partner.
Imagine you could never have a consenting partner. You could never do this with someone you loved.
You can never be proud of it. You can never own it. You could go to jail for it (for some older readers, they may have faced something like this in their lifetime).
Take that feeling you have. That sinking, depressing, awful feeling and put that onto every single person with pedophilic urges.
It's a situation to be pitied, not hated. They can never experience what many of us can daily or weekly or monthly. And they don't even have the social support structure to deal with those feelings.
If you're feeling sexually frustrated, you have friends who can and will listen and empathize. Imagine not being able to say anything to anyone ever. Even if you knew someone who wouldn't judge you, imagine the social stigma about the topic- the shame you feel just thinking about it. Why would you want to bring it up? You wouldn't feel comfortable with it even IF you trusted that person not to flip out and call the police on you.
This was one more roll of the genetic dice that you happened to get lucky on.
Not something you willfully did to "be a better person."
Another thing- Have you ever been uncomfortable with something about yourself? (Preferably something you can't change, but it's somewhat relevant even if it was something you could change)
Doesn't that suck? To look at yourself in the mirror and to be unhappy? To hate yourself? To be so ashamed of who or what you are that you want to die? I'm sure a lot of us have been there.
Has someone ever tried to pressure you into changing? Has someone ever made you feel as though it was imperative to make that change? Have relationships or friendships hinged on that change? Even if you couldn't actually do it?
We have to learn to accept and cope with what we have. If we can change the things we dislike, that's part of coping- but if we can't, then we have to cope another way. You can't will away the gay. You can't pray away your "unclean" lusts. You can't trick yourself into not being who you are or attracted to what you are. You just have to cope with it.
And that coping process is a helluva lot easier if you don't have idiots sticking their nose in your face and telling you how you ought to be all day.
Just try to empathize with what someone with pedophilic urges is going through. Maybe if society was better about helping people cope, we wouldn't have so many goddamn actual pedophiles sitting around in prison after no one was around to help them through their shitty situation.
Take this post and replace the current issue with any other issue of gender or sexuality or identity, and you're pretty much set.
-
Wads
DISCLAIMER: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT TAKE THIS TO MEAN I CONDONE OR ACCEPT THE AWFUL ACTIONS TAKEN BY PEOPLE IN THIS SITUATION. I DO NOT.
SO, I figure I'll jump in on the topic I wanted to post about right around the time I left- pedophilia, and sexuality in general.
To anyone who's followed this blog, you know I browse reddit. A lot of times the middle class white male college educated, liberally-leaning perspective is just nice to be around.
Other times, it sucks. Big time.
The topic of pedophilia comes up every once in a while on reddit. Someone will do an AMA (interview where anyone can ask questions) about how their spouse sexually abused their child, or occasionally, you'll see someone who actually has pedophilic desires do an AMA. The pure amount of animosity and general ignorance on the topic is just upsetting.
Let's start with the obvious statements:
1. I understand that touching children is wrong. Agency to commit and consent to complicated actions like that is not something children have. They can't be held accountable to contracts, they're tried different from adults in court, they're not capable of giving consent (except under specific circumstances), and they aren't allowed to be released from parental custody unless, again, specific circumstances are met. Point is- it's wrong to try to force that responsibility of agency onto them when they're not ready, and it's equally wrong to take the agency they have away from them.
No one is arguing otherwise. That's the first step to approaching this discussion.
2. No one is excusing their behavior. When you act on your impulses, you deserve the consequences, regardless of what they are. What this discussion aims to do is explain behavior and, more particularly, desires.
So starting this discussion, you may be uncomfortable with the idea of someone sexually wanting a child. It's not a comfortable thought- but here's a little exercise:
If you're reading this, chances are, you're a friend of mine and you're probably willing to agree that homosexuality is acceptable and more importantly, natural. The desire for another person of the same sex is natural in its own right. Now, are you interested in skinny guys or Muscles McGoo? Do you like dark hair or lighter hair? Do you want him to be protective or do you want him to respect your sense of individual ability? How about the sex? Do you have a preferred position? Is there something a woman can do that just turns you on? Is there just a thought that turns you on? Do you have any fetishes? Do you like light bondage? How about toys? Do you have any roleplay fantasies?
Now let me ask you this-- Could you change those preferences or desires? Would you change them?
Your answers to these questions are subjective across each person. But the essence of it is that your preferences and desires are not something you choose. It's more likely that you stumbled into them through personal exploration, sexual or otherwise, and you started going back to them when you liked what you found.
That is the heart of a fetish or a philia. In the case of pedophilia, we're dealing with a fetish that is socially, legally, and personally unacceptable. No one will talk to you about it, you're labeled as a monster even if you've never done anything, and the worst of it is that you can't change it no matter how much you want to.
To those of you who've had sex or some sort of sexual interaction that was meaningful- how would it feel to know that you could never have the kind of sexual interaction that you wanted. Ever? Imagine up the best sexual situation you can think of. The most romantic, the most passionate, the hottest- whatever you want. Now really get into that. Own it. Want it.
Now imagine it was literally impossible to do without hurting your partner.
Imagine you could never have a consenting partner. You could never do this with someone you loved.
You can never be proud of it. You can never own it. You could go to jail for it (for some older readers, they may have faced something like this in their lifetime).
Take that feeling you have. That sinking, depressing, awful feeling and put that onto every single person with pedophilic urges.
It's a situation to be pitied, not hated. They can never experience what many of us can daily or weekly or monthly. And they don't even have the social support structure to deal with those feelings.
If you're feeling sexually frustrated, you have friends who can and will listen and empathize. Imagine not being able to say anything to anyone ever. Even if you knew someone who wouldn't judge you, imagine the social stigma about the topic- the shame you feel just thinking about it. Why would you want to bring it up? You wouldn't feel comfortable with it even IF you trusted that person not to flip out and call the police on you.
This was one more roll of the genetic dice that you happened to get lucky on.
Not something you willfully did to "be a better person."
Another thing- Have you ever been uncomfortable with something about yourself? (Preferably something you can't change, but it's somewhat relevant even if it was something you could change)
Doesn't that suck? To look at yourself in the mirror and to be unhappy? To hate yourself? To be so ashamed of who or what you are that you want to die? I'm sure a lot of us have been there.
Has someone ever tried to pressure you into changing? Has someone ever made you feel as though it was imperative to make that change? Have relationships or friendships hinged on that change? Even if you couldn't actually do it?
We have to learn to accept and cope with what we have. If we can change the things we dislike, that's part of coping- but if we can't, then we have to cope another way. You can't will away the gay. You can't pray away your "unclean" lusts. You can't trick yourself into not being who you are or attracted to what you are. You just have to cope with it.
And that coping process is a helluva lot easier if you don't have idiots sticking their nose in your face and telling you how you ought to be all day.
Just try to empathize with what someone with pedophilic urges is going through. Maybe if society was better about helping people cope, we wouldn't have so many goddamn actual pedophiles sitting around in prison after no one was around to help them through their shitty situation.
Take this post and replace the current issue with any other issue of gender or sexuality or identity, and you're pretty much set.
-
Wads
DISCLAIMER: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DO NOT TAKE THIS TO MEAN I CONDONE OR ACCEPT THE AWFUL ACTIONS TAKEN BY PEOPLE IN THIS SITUATION. I DO NOT.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Temporary Hiatus
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)