Q. Since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America, many concerned citizens have been snatching up copies of George Orwell's '1984', in response to his playing 'fast and loose with the facts'. Is this something we should be concerned about?
A. Not unduly, no.
President Trump does have something of a penchant for hyperbole and exaggeration, to be sure. It's part of his character, and for the most part his supporters know not to take him too literally when it comes to the specifics.
On the contrary, many in fact prefer his style of 'casual' dishonesty as an indicator of enthusiasm, over the career politicians who have made an art-form of that much more obsequious form of dishonesty, double-talk. You can see it any interview—rather than answering an actual question, they instead answer a different question that hasn't been asked, but one in which the answer makes them look good.
If they were trying to actually provide useful information, of course, they would first make it clear why it makes no sense to ask the original question, before rephrasing it to something more helpful. This rarely happens, but when it does, it feels different and you notice it. For example, take this partially fictitious exchange loosely paraphrased from an interview with Nigel Farage:
Interviewer: "So if you were to become Prime Minister, would one of your first orders be to kick all the immigrants out?"
Farage: "I'm not going to be Prime Minister, let's make that clear. But if you mean, 'Do I think the country would be better off if we ended all immigration,' then no, I don't think that at all, and have never claimed otherwise."
Isn't that refreshing.
Anyhow, an irony that most prefer to ignore is that the real culprits in the 'war on facts', so to speak, are the very organisations claiming that this is what President Trump is doing. The mainstream media has been outright lying about almost everything they report on for at least the past decade, and probably a long time before that too. However, while in the past they mostly limited it to lies of omission (which are no less lies—except when it comes to defamation suits), missing out certain facts in order to frame their stories in ways that lead people to conclusions that no reasonable person would reach if presented with all the facts... since the beginning of the last US election cycle, they've uprooted and shifted firmly into the territory of outright fabrication.
To put it very clearly, everything negative the mainstream media has claimed about Donald Trump (which is almost everything they've had to say about him) is demonstrably false by even a cursory glance at the primary sources. Rank amateurs that they are, they made the rookie mistake that is the undoing of all bad propaganda:
Never assume that the people you're propagating to are idiots.
The only people convinced that President Trump was a monster after the collaborated year long smear campaign in the press were the people that were already convinced from the outset that President Trump was a monster. Even some of them saw through the obvious campaign of lies, and ended up switching sides. It was so transparent, that anybody who was not a hardened anti-Trumpster was driven to check the primary sources for themselves, and after the picture the media had painted, the reality looked surprisingly rosy by comparison.
Q. But if President Trump and the mainstream media are both peddling lies of sorts, then why support one over the other?
A. This is something of a point of contention for those that claim to be (but actually aren't) political centrists—that those on the 'left' will believe left leaning sources, and those on the 'right' will believe right leaning sources, and confirmation bias will do the rest.
To some extent, this is of course true. Confirmation bias is a powerful cognitive blind spot shared by everybody, including the self-professed (albeit falsely) centrists.
However, what makes President Trump stand out is that he did not make the same rookie mistake. When he speaks, he credits his listeners—the public at large—with enough intelligence to be able to determine for themselves when he's speaking literally and when he's exaggerating or overstating. Sure, some people do get it wrong, especially those with a 'progressive' mindset (more often than not, deliberately), but the undercurrent of basic respect goes a long way towards earning the charitable benefit of the doubt, a currency the mainstream media has long since been found wanting.
Q. So are you saying that Donald Trump won the presidency because he was better at propaganda than the mainstream media?
A. If by 'propaganda', you mean 'not insulting people's intelligence', then yes.
Tuesday, February 07, 2017
Monday, February 06, 2017
Views from the Abyss #36: Right Wing vs Left Wing
When I try to represent the standard single axis political spectrum visually, the right always seems to end up on the left, and coloured red, despite the Soviets being left wing.
This is when it occurred to me that we've been picturing it wrong all this time. Political positions don't appear on a spectrum at all. Left and right are simply not opposite but equal political extremes.
A more accurate depiction would show a circle representing a planet. The core of the planet is dense with the experience and wisdom of millennia of lessons hard learned, and compacted with values such as respect for the liberty, rights, responsibilities and contributions of the individual, family, community, shared values, limited local governance, a tolerance for disagreement over the inconsequential, and a healthy wariness of outsiders that may not share the same values.
The outer layers of the planet would vary depending on the planet, but would contain societal norms that are compatible with the core values, and that have been incorporated successfully.
The planet represents civilisation, order. It is a stable equilibrium. Those that are happy to live on the planet, and would prefer it not to change too much, are conservatives.
Surrounding the planet is the nebulous idea space. Here you find 'progressive' talking points floating about in their own little bubbles. The ideas sound nice in principle, but taken at face value are naive, and incompatible with civilisation.
Some people on the planet look up at some of these ideas, and finding themselves taken in by some, attempt to incorporate them into the civilisation. Some are re-hammered and successfully incorporated, others are incorporated poorly and cause unforeseen problems. The people advocating for these ideas are progressives.
Of course, some people on the planet are so taken by a particular idea, or a collection of ideas, that they believe the incompatible planet should be destroyed (or abandoned at least) to make way for a new planet comprised of the ideas they advocate for. These are the extreme left; they come in many forms, and frequently don't see eye to eye. Each will accuse the other of being 'right wing'.
Most attempts at building a new planet are unsuccessful—the movements tend to implode as the flaws of the pure idea become evident, and those that recognise them are dismissed as apostates.
Some are relatively successful though, with some minor caveats: without the adhesion of the dense core, such societies are inherently unstable equilibriums, requiring external force to hold them together. Authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, secret police, indiscriminate execution of dissenters and anyone thought to be one, silencing of the press, an end to common law and due process, tyranny etc. are what you will find in a best case scenario.
Right wing philosophy is the basis of civilisation and the preservation thereof. Left wing philosophy advocates for ideas that can help the society grow and evolve. The two positions are and should be complementary, each acting as a counterbalance to the other, but they are not equal and opposite. Civilisation cannot be built on left wing values.
This is when it occurred to me that we've been picturing it wrong all this time. Political positions don't appear on a spectrum at all. Left and right are simply not opposite but equal political extremes.
A more accurate depiction would show a circle representing a planet. The core of the planet is dense with the experience and wisdom of millennia of lessons hard learned, and compacted with values such as respect for the liberty, rights, responsibilities and contributions of the individual, family, community, shared values, limited local governance, a tolerance for disagreement over the inconsequential, and a healthy wariness of outsiders that may not share the same values.
The outer layers of the planet would vary depending on the planet, but would contain societal norms that are compatible with the core values, and that have been incorporated successfully.
The planet represents civilisation, order. It is a stable equilibrium. Those that are happy to live on the planet, and would prefer it not to change too much, are conservatives.
Surrounding the planet is the nebulous idea space. Here you find 'progressive' talking points floating about in their own little bubbles. The ideas sound nice in principle, but taken at face value are naive, and incompatible with civilisation.
Some people on the planet look up at some of these ideas, and finding themselves taken in by some, attempt to incorporate them into the civilisation. Some are re-hammered and successfully incorporated, others are incorporated poorly and cause unforeseen problems. The people advocating for these ideas are progressives.
Of course, some people on the planet are so taken by a particular idea, or a collection of ideas, that they believe the incompatible planet should be destroyed (or abandoned at least) to make way for a new planet comprised of the ideas they advocate for. These are the extreme left; they come in many forms, and frequently don't see eye to eye. Each will accuse the other of being 'right wing'.
Most attempts at building a new planet are unsuccessful—the movements tend to implode as the flaws of the pure idea become evident, and those that recognise them are dismissed as apostates.
Some are relatively successful though, with some minor caveats: without the adhesion of the dense core, such societies are inherently unstable equilibriums, requiring external force to hold them together. Authoritarianism, totalitarianism, fascism, secret police, indiscriminate execution of dissenters and anyone thought to be one, silencing of the press, an end to common law and due process, tyranny etc. are what you will find in a best case scenario.
Right wing philosophy is the basis of civilisation and the preservation thereof. Left wing philosophy advocates for ideas that can help the society grow and evolve. The two positions are and should be complementary, each acting as a counterbalance to the other, but they are not equal and opposite. Civilisation cannot be built on left wing values.
Views from the Abyss #35: Punching Nazis and Collectivism
Q. I hear a lot of talk in the social media these days about the morality of punching Nazis, and would like to hear your take on the subject.
A. The question contains an obvious tell that it was posited from a left wing 'progressive' mindset, and that alone should act as a warning that it has been misleadingly framed.
While there are many points of difference between right wing 'conservative' and left wing 'progressive' mindsets, one of the most anti-civilisation, pro-division, pro-chaos left wing positions is its default to collectivism. This is contrasted with right wing conservative individualism below (not dictionary definitions):
Individualism
The recognition that in spite of the influence of external factors, the individual (or conspiring individuals) is ultimately responsible for his/her choices and actions.
Collectivism
The principle by which society is divided along arbitrarily defined lines such as race, gender, political affiliation etc.; those grouped on one side are punished, while those grouped on the other side are rewarded. The individual is defined by the group they are assigned to, frequently by factors they have no control over. Accordingly, the fault or virtue of an individual is borne by the group, and the punishment or reward for the group is borne by any individual member, at the discretion of whoever decides they are in charge at that time.
The problem with collectivism, as should be somewhat obvious, is that it is inherently authoritarian and discriminatory. This is why it should come as no surprise that it was the left wing Democrats who were opposed to ending slavery, responsible for Japanese internment, opposed to civil rights and an end to segregation, and many other discriminatory crimes against humanity that people seem to think the right wing Republicans were responsible for.
So how does this relate to punching Nazis?
Well, as groups go, the Nazis carry something of a stigma that stops people from wanting to be associated with them—even people that agree with some (but by no means all) of the Nazi positions. It is not enough that the collectivist mindset demands that anybody in any way sympathetic to a particular group of people—a number of whom were responsible for some very terrible things—must therefore also be guilty of all the same crimes 70 years after the fact, but it is also up to the collectivist to determine for themselves who is guilty of this sympathy. And typically, it's anybody that disagrees with them over anything.
Q. Could you give an illustrated example of this please?
A. Sure. Meet Adam. He's a left wing 'progressive'. One day he sees Bob in a crowd. Bob is wearing a shirt that implies he and Adam might disagree over some things. Adam's thinking quickly races through the following train of logic to a startling conclusion.
"Bob evidently disagrees with with my political position."
"My political position is enlightened, and therefore Bob's must be chaotic and evil."
"The Nazis were chaotic and evil."
"Bob is therefore a Nazi."
"The Nazis were all for genocide."
"Bob is therefore all for genocide, and must be stopped."
Adam proceeds to punch Bob in the face, on the grounds that Bob is a Nazi, and a genocidal maniac that must be stopped. Other left wing 'progressives' who also saw Bob's t-shirt and came to similar conclusions praise Adam for his bravery, condemn Bob some more, call him a cry baby, and debate on the internet whether it is justified to punch Nazis (conclusion, 'Absolutely!')
Bob, incidentally, is not for genocide at all, and disagrees with the Nazis over most things. Sadly for him though, he was grouped in with the Nazis and punished as an individual for the crimes of different individuals at the sole discretion of a self professed advocate of justice.
In his somewhat well known novel, 1984, George Orwell talked about the Thought Police. What made them terrifying was the concept that people were punished for their opinions, rather than the choices they make and actions they carry out as a result of those opinions. If Adam is to be taken at his word, he represents a rising movement that is far more frightening. He is the self professed police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of trumped up thought crimes that only exist in his own head. And for this, he is hailed a hero on national TV.
Now, the individualist mindset of the right wing conservative would see this whole sequence of events slightly differently. They're conclusion would be that Adam is a deranged psychopath, prone to acts of unwarranted violence against innocent passersby, and needs to be locked up. His excuse is literally just that—an excuse—and demonstrates yet further that he is unhinged and a danger to society.
Individualism
The recognition that in spite of the influence of external factors, the individual (or conspiring individuals) is ultimately responsible for his/her choices and actions.
Collectivism
The principle by which society is divided along arbitrarily defined lines such as race, gender, political affiliation etc.; those grouped on one side are punished, while those grouped on the other side are rewarded. The individual is defined by the group they are assigned to, frequently by factors they have no control over. Accordingly, the fault or virtue of an individual is borne by the group, and the punishment or reward for the group is borne by any individual member, at the discretion of whoever decides they are in charge at that time.
The problem with collectivism, as should be somewhat obvious, is that it is inherently authoritarian and discriminatory. This is why it should come as no surprise that it was the left wing Democrats who were opposed to ending slavery, responsible for Japanese internment, opposed to civil rights and an end to segregation, and many other discriminatory crimes against humanity that people seem to think the right wing Republicans were responsible for.
So how does this relate to punching Nazis?
Well, as groups go, the Nazis carry something of a stigma that stops people from wanting to be associated with them—even people that agree with some (but by no means all) of the Nazi positions. It is not enough that the collectivist mindset demands that anybody in any way sympathetic to a particular group of people—a number of whom were responsible for some very terrible things—must therefore also be guilty of all the same crimes 70 years after the fact, but it is also up to the collectivist to determine for themselves who is guilty of this sympathy. And typically, it's anybody that disagrees with them over anything.
Q. Could you give an illustrated example of this please?
A. Sure. Meet Adam. He's a left wing 'progressive'. One day he sees Bob in a crowd. Bob is wearing a shirt that implies he and Adam might disagree over some things. Adam's thinking quickly races through the following train of logic to a startling conclusion.
"Bob evidently disagrees with with my political position."
"My political position is enlightened, and therefore Bob's must be chaotic and evil."
"The Nazis were chaotic and evil."
"Bob is therefore a Nazi."
"The Nazis were all for genocide."
"Bob is therefore all for genocide, and must be stopped."
Adam proceeds to punch Bob in the face, on the grounds that Bob is a Nazi, and a genocidal maniac that must be stopped. Other left wing 'progressives' who also saw Bob's t-shirt and came to similar conclusions praise Adam for his bravery, condemn Bob some more, call him a cry baby, and debate on the internet whether it is justified to punch Nazis (conclusion, 'Absolutely!')
Bob, incidentally, is not for genocide at all, and disagrees with the Nazis over most things. Sadly for him though, he was grouped in with the Nazis and punished as an individual for the crimes of different individuals at the sole discretion of a self professed advocate of justice.
In his somewhat well known novel, 1984, George Orwell talked about the Thought Police. What made them terrifying was the concept that people were punished for their opinions, rather than the choices they make and actions they carry out as a result of those opinions. If Adam is to be taken at his word, he represents a rising movement that is far more frightening. He is the self professed police, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner of trumped up thought crimes that only exist in his own head. And for this, he is hailed a hero on national TV.
Now, the individualist mindset of the right wing conservative would see this whole sequence of events slightly differently. They're conclusion would be that Adam is a deranged psychopath, prone to acts of unwarranted violence against innocent passersby, and needs to be locked up. His excuse is literally just that—an excuse—and demonstrates yet further that he is unhinged and a danger to society.
Friday, November 11, 2016
Views from the Abyss #34: Same Sex Marriage Revisted
Q. Your very first 'View from the Abyss' was on the topic of same sex marriage, but it was very long winded and, frankly, convoluted by self-doubt. It certainly lacked the more decisive and hateful tone of your recent entries. As I'm sure your position has solidified over the past 18 months, could you reduce it down to something explainable in 60 seconds?
A. It rather depends on how fast you speak, but here goes...
1. There is no legitimate case to be made for expanding the definition of legal marriage to include same sex couples. There is however a strong legitimate case to be made against it.
2. Marriage as a legal institution is not a right—it's an imposition. As a rule, the State has no legitimate business regulating private personal relationships. What you get up to in private, and who you get up to it with, is nobody's business but your own.
3a. ALL children individually are the product of one man and one woman (an opposite sex coupling), even if technology does allow that they don't necessarily have to have met.
3b. As such, an exception to the rule is made for voluntary marriage of opposite sex couples. The net social harm of the imposition is offset by the net social benefit derived from providing a framework of environmental stability to the next generation of citizens during their most vulnerable years and beyond.
4a. NO children have been or will ever be the legitimate natural product of two people of the same sex.
4b. As such, no exception to the rule should be made for voluntary marriage of same sex couples. The net social harm of the imposition would be neither balanced nor offset by any social benefit.
4b. As such, no exception to the rule should be made for voluntary marriage of same sex couples. The net social harm of the imposition would be neither balanced nor offset by any social benefit.
4c. Anybody in a same sex relationship that doesn't like this should remember that the State has no legitimate business regulating the personal feelings of adults either.
I hope that helps.
Update: While I can neither confirm nor deny that he personally reads these bulletins, President Trump evidently agrees that the state should not be imposing itself into adult relationships, and the LGBTP community are up in arms over it. Creating a national database of sexual orientation is exactly the sort of thing that could be abused by a future government, and is one of many reasons that limiting the state's power is the order of the day.
Update: While I can neither confirm nor deny that he personally reads these bulletins, President Trump evidently agrees that the state should not be imposing itself into adult relationships, and the LGBTP community are up in arms over it. Creating a national database of sexual orientation is exactly the sort of thing that could be abused by a future government, and is one of many reasons that limiting the state's power is the order of the day.
Friday, September 02, 2016
Views from the Abyss #33: Dog Whistles
Q. I often hear of dog whistles being used during political campaign speeches and whatnot. What is that all about?
A. The notorious dog whistle rhetoric is considered to be an extremely dangerous means of delivering subliminal messages to certain groups of people, while everybody else remains entirely unaware that anything has happened.
A typical exchange goes as follows:
Politician: (Blah blah blah)
'Progressive': Oh my god, Politician just said something totally anti-semitic!
Joe Regular: I didn't hear him say anything anti-semitic at all.
'Progressive': Well of course you didn't, because it's like, a dog whistle. What he said was designed to like... to totally resonate, but only with people already pre-deposed to an anti-semitic world view. It's like... an appeal to hatred, or something...
Joe Regular: Nope. Still can't hear it.
Now, ignoring even that weak stimuli only produces weak responses, our 'progressive' friend above fails to note the irony that they heard the so called dog whistle loud and clear, though no doubt do not consider themselves to be anti-semitic. And often, the hypothetical exchange would continue as follows:
Anti-semitic: Hey, what are you guys talking about?
Joe Regular: 'Progressive' is trying to convince me that Politician's speech contained an anti-semitic slur in the form of a dog whistle—a subliminal primer message that only already anti-semitic people can hear—as some kind of appeal to hatred, a means of securing the anti-semitic vote, as it were.
Anti-semitic: Well, I didn't hear anything.
'Progressive': Like, that's why they call it a dog whistle, you knyoo. Only those that are already pre-disposed to anti-semitism can hear it! Hello?
Anti-semitic: Listen, Sir or Madam, delete as applicable. I'm as anti-semitic as they come. When I learned about the six million Jews killed under Nazi occupation (which can not be falsified on threat of imprisonment), I thought 'Nice start, but what about the remaining three point five?' That's how much I hate Jews. I didn't hear Politician say a single anti-semitic thing during his speech, and I still think he's an arse. I notice however that you seemed to hear it just fine though.
'Progressive': Oh my god, I can't believe you just. I can't even. That is like, totally ignorant and insulting, you knyoo. Some of us are just, like... intelligent enough, to notice these things, you knyoo!
And herein lies the crux of the issue. Dog whistle is merely a descriptive term for a perceived form of persuasion from the eyes of one who believes themselves immune to fallacy, and clever enough to have spotted it. Persuasion comes in many forms, and there's no reason to think that making a dog whistle spotter look foolish (i.e. discredit an opponent) is not among its repertoire.
And it's not even hard to do. As with so many other liberal arts rhetorics, the dog whistle spotter suffers frequently from appeals to hubris, the idea that only oneself and one's in-group is capable of independent thought in a world of mindless automatons.
Nobody is immune to fallacy.
A. The notorious dog whistle rhetoric is considered to be an extremely dangerous means of delivering subliminal messages to certain groups of people, while everybody else remains entirely unaware that anything has happened.
A typical exchange goes as follows:
Politician: (Blah blah blah)
'Progressive': Oh my god, Politician just said something totally anti-semitic!
Joe Regular: I didn't hear him say anything anti-semitic at all.
'Progressive': Well of course you didn't, because it's like, a dog whistle. What he said was designed to like... to totally resonate, but only with people already pre-deposed to an anti-semitic world view. It's like... an appeal to hatred, or something...
Joe Regular: Nope. Still can't hear it.
Now, ignoring even that weak stimuli only produces weak responses, our 'progressive' friend above fails to note the irony that they heard the so called dog whistle loud and clear, though no doubt do not consider themselves to be anti-semitic. And often, the hypothetical exchange would continue as follows:
Anti-semitic: Hey, what are you guys talking about?
Joe Regular: 'Progressive' is trying to convince me that Politician's speech contained an anti-semitic slur in the form of a dog whistle—a subliminal primer message that only already anti-semitic people can hear—as some kind of appeal to hatred, a means of securing the anti-semitic vote, as it were.
Anti-semitic: Well, I didn't hear anything.
'Progressive': Like, that's why they call it a dog whistle, you knyoo. Only those that are already pre-disposed to anti-semitism can hear it! Hello?
Anti-semitic: Listen, Sir or Madam, delete as applicable. I'm as anti-semitic as they come. When I learned about the six million Jews killed under Nazi occupation (which can not be falsified on threat of imprisonment), I thought 'Nice start, but what about the remaining three point five?' That's how much I hate Jews. I didn't hear Politician say a single anti-semitic thing during his speech, and I still think he's an arse. I notice however that you seemed to hear it just fine though.
'Progressive': Oh my god, I can't believe you just. I can't even. That is like, totally ignorant and insulting, you knyoo. Some of us are just, like... intelligent enough, to notice these things, you knyoo!
And herein lies the crux of the issue. Dog whistle is merely a descriptive term for a perceived form of persuasion from the eyes of one who believes themselves immune to fallacy, and clever enough to have spotted it. Persuasion comes in many forms, and there's no reason to think that making a dog whistle spotter look foolish (i.e. discredit an opponent) is not among its repertoire.
And it's not even hard to do. As with so many other liberal arts rhetorics, the dog whistle spotter suffers frequently from appeals to hubris, the idea that only oneself and one's in-group is capable of independent thought in a world of mindless automatons.
Nobody is immune to fallacy.
Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Views from the Abyss #32: No Means No
A common misconception among the 'progressives' and those who shout their morality from the rooftops, is that 'No + Sex = Rape', and that this principle applies universally. It comes up often when TV shows such as Game of Thrones depict a complex sexual encounter, where one party (typically female) is reluctant and says the 'n' word but goes through with it anyway. The internet is quick to voice its outrage. 'Why did this otherwise reasonable character RAPE that poor woman?'
The point that is easily overlooked is that the "No Means No" principle was never intended to assert that "No" is the official safe word in all cultures throughout time. That would just be stupid. Having a universally understood safe word in a single culture is actually not a bad idea, and would probably go a long way towards reducing sexual assaults, but 'No' would not be it. It's far too common of a word to be of any use.
On the contrary, the purpose of it was to acknowledge that most sexual encounters are not scripted. They're nuanced and ambiguous, and involve a lot of sensing out the moment on both sides, and if one party decides they do not want to go through with it, they owe it to themselves to be as unambiguous about this as they can possibly be, so as to avoid any kind of misunderstanding. And the person they're with, being a reasonable not-rapey kind of a person like most people are, will hear the unambiguous message and respect it. In a mutual encounter, it's reasonable that responsibility sits on both sets of shoulders.
And while it's true that circumstances such as a pre-existing sexual relationship are not by themselves indicative of an immediate desire to engage sexually right now, it does muddy the waters with yet more ambiguity.
If in doubt, spell it out.
Views from the Abyss #31: Global Offence
Q. Have you seen that washing detergent commercial out of China, where they stick an African American™ into a washing machine and he comes out Asian. It’s so racist!
A. No it isn’t. Misandrist at a stretch, but little beyond that. Can you point out something specific about it that’s racist?
Q. Well, they’re suggesting that dark skin is dirty, and that a simple washing cycle is all that’s needed to wash it off.
A. That would be the opposite of racist. That would be saying that race is only skin deep, and underneath it we're all the same really.
Even the company that made the commercial has weighed in, stating that they never considered the colour of one's skin to have any effect on a person's value, that the overseas media are being overly sensitive, and they can't see what all the fuss is about. A decade or two ago, this would have been a common sense stance to a 'progressive', but times change, and not discriminating based on race is the new racism.
But if we go with with the ‘black skin is dirty’ angle, I can understand why people might find that offensive—people find literally everything offensive—but that doesn’t mean there’s racism involved. It’s never implied that because of his skin colour he is inferior in some way, just that the literal colour of his skin could be improved upon.
Now keeping that in mind, let's take a step back. Nowhere did it imply that black skin was dirty. You are the one that is saying this. You believe that black people are disgusting and inferior, and you therefore seek out confirmation of this in your day to day life.
Of course, it's also possible that the commercial merely confirmed a perceived impression—that other people find blacks to be inferior, and always have, in all cultures throughout time. By immediately assuming the worst about the Chinese commercial though, you’ve forfeited the right to any kind of charitable interpretation of your stance, you racist!
Furthermore, it's not even that much of an improvement. If blacks have been seen as inferior in all cultures throughout time, then I would like to know how this situation has come to be. Think carefully before you speak.
So returning to the commercial, of course it wasn't suggesting that skin colour could just simply be washed off, because if it was, then it wouldn’t be saying much about the product being advertised. Surely the more likely assertion is that their detergent is so powerfully strong that it can even wash the melanin out of people’s skin.
Hyperbole sells.
Q. But the way the female character looks at him, as if the Asian version is some kind of an improvement. You can admit that’s racist can’t you?
A. Absolutely not. First of all, a fictional character can be racist without any implication of endorsement from the production side. Secondly, having a racial preference in who you find attractive is not racism.
Dictating what kinds of people an individual may and may not find attractive though, is authoritarianism. No wonder the ‘progressives’ want to disarm everybody but the state.
Update: As a curious aside, this commercial was a shot by shot remake of a 1985 Italian commercial which followed the same premise, with one minor caveat. A rather dull and uninteresting Italian man was put in the washing machine, and out popped a dashing and muscular black man, to everybody's delight. Whatever the message was about their detergent has been lost on me, but needless to say, I don't hear any cries of racism over that one. Funny how that works out.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Views from the Abyss #30: White Privilege
Q. Is white privilege a reality in 2016 America?
A. No.
As with 'micro-aggressions' (or 'micro-umbrages', as they should more accurately be known), and other 'progressive' ideas, 'white privilege' is an academic construct and cannot exist outside of a very specific idea space context.
Furthermore, it is also like 'micro-aggressions' in that the specific naming was chosen to illustrate a perspective, but when taken literally, only fosters hate and divisiveness.
'White privilege' is a rare example of a two word concept where both words are problematic:
In fact, as describing phenomena goes, this is as about as redundant as it gets. It's practically tautological.
Now this is not to say that many non-whites in America don't face disadvantages due to their skin colour because I'm sure they do (citation needed), but that's exactly what they are—disadvantages. The experience of the majority must necessarily be the yardstick by which normality is measured, so any deviance from this should be described in terms that reflect this.
It's somewhat ironic that by insisting on the existence of 'white privilege', 'progressives' of all ethnicities are actually invalidating and erasing the disadvantages experienced by minorities.
Q. How so?
A. For the white majority to have privilege on the basis of their being the white majority, the disadvantaged minority must by that reasoning represent normality, which puts them in no position to complain about their lot in life.
A. No.
As with 'micro-aggressions' (or 'micro-umbrages', as they should more accurately be known), and other 'progressive' ideas, 'white privilege' is an academic construct and cannot exist outside of a very specific idea space context.
Furthermore, it is also like 'micro-aggressions' in that the specific naming was chosen to illustrate a perspective, but when taken literally, only fosters hate and divisiveness.
'White privilege' is a rare example of a two word concept where both words are problematic:
- 'White' (referring to the skin colour of those perceived to be privileged) is in fact describing a societal 'majority'.
- 'Privilege', which by implication of its definition can only be ascribed to a minority group, is by necessity describing a societal 'normality'.
In fact, as describing phenomena goes, this is as about as redundant as it gets. It's practically tautological.
Now this is not to say that many non-whites in America don't face disadvantages due to their skin colour because I'm sure they do (citation needed), but that's exactly what they are—disadvantages. The experience of the majority must necessarily be the yardstick by which normality is measured, so any deviance from this should be described in terms that reflect this.
It's somewhat ironic that by insisting on the existence of 'white privilege', 'progressives' of all ethnicities are actually invalidating and erasing the disadvantages experienced by minorities.
Q. How so?
A. For the white majority to have privilege on the basis of their being the white majority, the disadvantaged minority must by that reasoning represent normality, which puts them in no position to complain about their lot in life.
Views from the Abyss #29: Micro-aggressions
Q. Didn't you already cover this one?
A. Yes, but in light of recent posts on falsely applied academic ideology, I felt it needed revisiting from a fresh angle of attack.
Much like many 'progressive' ideas, micro-aggressions are an academic construct, and do not apply to the real world.
What in essence the concept describes is 1) an entirely internal experience that has, 2) been projected outward as a means of illustrating the perception of that experience; asserting motive and intent onto third parties that, 3) have done nothing wrong and are oblivious to whatever the 'victim' might be going through. And though, 4) each instance is harmless by itself, 5) the instances add up, contributing to a general fatigue or malaise.
Of course, the experience it describes is indeed very real for some people, but framing such experiences as legitimate victimisation of subconscious acts of aggression is pure academic thought experiment.
For example, I'm sure most of you have experienced running late on your drive to work, only to hit red light after red light after red light. How many of you have gotten angry with the lights for ganging up on you? Be honest!
The lights are not ganging up on you; you know this. You know it's all in your head, but you project antagonistic motive and intent onto the traffic lights anyway, because it feels good; it works as a relief valve.
If you take micro-aggression theory literally though, then as far as you're concerned, the lights really do have it in for you. They need to check their luminescent privilege.
As with many other academic constructs, the choice of wording is paramount. The word 'aggression' was chosen specifically to illustrate the perception of it being an issue that originates externally. The experience it actually describes though is closer to one of umbrage.
And if they were called the more technically accurate 'micro-umbrages', then all the people complaining about them in real life would suddenly sound like the precise bunch of whiny self-entitled brats that they really are. Funny that.
Words shape perception.
A. Yes, but in light of recent posts on falsely applied academic ideology, I felt it needed revisiting from a fresh angle of attack.
Much like many 'progressive' ideas, micro-aggressions are an academic construct, and do not apply to the real world.
What in essence the concept describes is 1) an entirely internal experience that has, 2) been projected outward as a means of illustrating the perception of that experience; asserting motive and intent onto third parties that, 3) have done nothing wrong and are oblivious to whatever the 'victim' might be going through. And though, 4) each instance is harmless by itself, 5) the instances add up, contributing to a general fatigue or malaise.
Of course, the experience it describes is indeed very real for some people, but framing such experiences as legitimate victimisation of subconscious acts of aggression is pure academic thought experiment.
For example, I'm sure most of you have experienced running late on your drive to work, only to hit red light after red light after red light. How many of you have gotten angry with the lights for ganging up on you? Be honest!
The lights are not ganging up on you; you know this. You know it's all in your head, but you project antagonistic motive and intent onto the traffic lights anyway, because it feels good; it works as a relief valve.
If you take micro-aggression theory literally though, then as far as you're concerned, the lights really do have it in for you. They need to check their luminescent privilege.
As with many other academic constructs, the choice of wording is paramount. The word 'aggression' was chosen specifically to illustrate the perception of it being an issue that originates externally. The experience it actually describes though is closer to one of umbrage.
And if they were called the more technically accurate 'micro-umbrages', then all the people complaining about them in real life would suddenly sound like the precise bunch of whiny self-entitled brats that they really are. Funny that.
Words shape perception.
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
Views from the Abyss #28: Problematic Elements
Q. Many describe hit HBO series 'Game of Thrones' as being enjoyable, despite its 'problematic elements'. What are you thoughts on this?
A. Any kind of fantasy genre runs the risk of having problematic elements due, really, to the nature of the beast. Magical powers and abilities are used which presumably would not be possible in the real world, and the extent to which such powers and abilities may be effective depends not so much on internal consistency but on what the plot requires at any given time.
The Star Wars prequels were a good example of taking this too far. The Jedi were literally able to do anything at all that the plot required; if they need to win a fight against a giant army, they will win; if they need to lose a fight against a couple of kids with sticks, they will lose. The whole sense of discontinuity was so distractingly jarring that it became very difficult to connect with the characters on any level. Game of Thrones does not suffer this to anything like that extent.
There are plot holes on the other hand. Again, inevitable when you have so many interconnecting plots. The murders of Jon Arryn and Joffrey Baratheon make no real sense at all when all the strings are unravelled, but it's certainly not enough to ruin it.
So yes, I would agree that it is enjoyable, despite its problematic elements.
Q. I think they were actually referring to the nudity, rapes, and skinning people alive.
A. Why? Were they in some way anachronistic, or shown incorrectly?
Q. More that they were distasteful, morally dubious, politically incorrect.
A. That's not what 'problematic element' means. It refers to an element that is inconsistent, out of place, or is factually/rationally/logically incorrect in some way. Nobody in their right mind uses it to mean 'distasteful' or 'morally dubious' or 'politically incorrect'.
Q. People on Tumblr do.
A. Of course they do.
A. Any kind of fantasy genre runs the risk of having problematic elements due, really, to the nature of the beast. Magical powers and abilities are used which presumably would not be possible in the real world, and the extent to which such powers and abilities may be effective depends not so much on internal consistency but on what the plot requires at any given time.
The Star Wars prequels were a good example of taking this too far. The Jedi were literally able to do anything at all that the plot required; if they need to win a fight against a giant army, they will win; if they need to lose a fight against a couple of kids with sticks, they will lose. The whole sense of discontinuity was so distractingly jarring that it became very difficult to connect with the characters on any level. Game of Thrones does not suffer this to anything like that extent.
There are plot holes on the other hand. Again, inevitable when you have so many interconnecting plots. The murders of Jon Arryn and Joffrey Baratheon make no real sense at all when all the strings are unravelled, but it's certainly not enough to ruin it.
So yes, I would agree that it is enjoyable, despite its problematic elements.
Q. I think they were actually referring to the nudity, rapes, and skinning people alive.
A. Why? Were they in some way anachronistic, or shown incorrectly?
Q. More that they were distasteful, morally dubious, politically incorrect.
A. That's not what 'problematic element' means. It refers to an element that is inconsistent, out of place, or is factually/rationally/logically incorrect in some way. Nobody in their right mind uses it to mean 'distasteful' or 'morally dubious' or 'politically incorrect'.
Q. People on Tumblr do.
A. Of course they do.
Monday, May 23, 2016
Views from the Abyss #27: Appeals to Hubris
Fallacies plague us daily in public discourse, and one that's lately been showing its face with more and more regularity is the appeal to hubris.
Put simply, it is the assertion that one's own opinion or stance is correct, and that anybody who disagrees does so because they are stupid, uneducated, morally bankrupt, intolerant etc., whatever fits.
Anecdotal examples:
'Either you like the new Ghostbusters movie that isn't out yet, or you're a misogynist. There is no middle ground.'
'Donald Trump only appeals to the most uneducated people in the country.'
'Immigration control is just a facade for racism.'
It is a very lazy lack of argument, and you would do well to avoid it.
Put simply, it is the assertion that one's own opinion or stance is correct, and that anybody who disagrees does so because they are stupid, uneducated, morally bankrupt, intolerant etc., whatever fits.
Anecdotal examples:
'Either you like the new Ghostbusters movie that isn't out yet, or you're a misogynist. There is no middle ground.'
'Donald Trump only appeals to the most uneducated people in the country.'
'Immigration control is just a facade for racism.'
It is a very lazy lack of argument, and you would do well to avoid it.
Views from the Abyss #26: Feminism
If you were to ask me what the greatest potential threat to civilisation we face in the modern world is...
What am I saying, 'if'?
Q. What is the greatest potential threat to civilisation we face in the modern world?
A. Feminism.
Now let me preface this by reminding everyone that while the base assertions of academic ideologies can assist in leading one to some interesting insight into the reasoning behind certain social interactions and phenomena, the base assertions themselves should never be taken literally, and the conclusions drawn should never be mistaken for actual explanations for individual instances of a given behaviour or phenomena, or a call to action over society-level issues that have been identified as requiring fixing.
Such academic insights provide little more than an analogy of macro-level social dynamics. They do not correspond meaningfully to anything real.
So for example, analysing the knock-on effects of strategic anti-essentialism in terms of perpetuating pre-existing majority vs. minority unequal power relations, is probably quite interesting, if you like that sort of thing. Accosting white guys in university hallways for wearing dreadlocks, on the other hand, means that you are an academic failure for having failed to grasp what academia even is, and let’s be fair, a failure at life in general, because you’re accosting white guys in corridors for 'stealing your hairstyle'. I mean, really. What the hell’s the matter with you?
So where does feminism come into this? Well, let’s look at the core assertions of feminism. The quick version...
'The entire history of human civilisation can be described in terms of systems of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women.'
Sounds very truthy doesn’t it. Of course, not only is it contentious at best and demonstrably false at worse, it’s like that by design. Think of it as an academic 'what if?' scenario.
But something else you may notice is that it sounds rather a lot like another ideological underpinning (edited down for conciseness).
'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight.... Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.'
Yes, the latter is straight from The Communist Manifesto, academic Marxism at its finest (as if there’s any other kind—Karl Marx was not a Marxist), and it’s no coincidence because the tenets of feminism were very closely modelled on this.
So why is this a problem? Because people took Marxism literally, and the results were not pretty. At an estimated 94 million deaths, Marxist-inspired Communism was the leading ideological cause of death in the 20th century.
And increasingly, more and more people are taking feminism literally too.
Now, I’m not saying that feminists are advocating for anything silly, like, a genocide of 45% of the global population—other than those that are advocating for exactly that scenario, of course. But when the parallels are that close, and you have first world nations being led by self-professed feminists whose first act of parliament is to abandon meritocracy and to hire solely on the biological facts of one's birth, you would have to be blind not to see the looming danger.
What am I saying, 'if'?
Q. What is the greatest potential threat to civilisation we face in the modern world?
A. Feminism.
 |
| Definitely not a terrorist organisation |
Such academic insights provide little more than an analogy of macro-level social dynamics. They do not correspond meaningfully to anything real.
So for example, analysing the knock-on effects of strategic anti-essentialism in terms of perpetuating pre-existing majority vs. minority unequal power relations, is probably quite interesting, if you like that sort of thing. Accosting white guys in university hallways for wearing dreadlocks, on the other hand, means that you are an academic failure for having failed to grasp what academia even is, and let’s be fair, a failure at life in general, because you’re accosting white guys in corridors for 'stealing your hairstyle'. I mean, really. What the hell’s the matter with you?
So where does feminism come into this? Well, let’s look at the core assertions of feminism. The quick version...
'The entire history of human civilisation can be described in terms of systems of social structures, and practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women.'
 |
| Feminists, trivialising rape since 1992 |
But something else you may notice is that it sounds rather a lot like another ideological underpinning (edited down for conciseness).
'The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles, freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight.... Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.'
Yes, the latter is straight from The Communist Manifesto, academic Marxism at its finest (as if there’s any other kind—Karl Marx was not a Marxist), and it’s no coincidence because the tenets of feminism were very closely modelled on this.
So why is this a problem? Because people took Marxism literally, and the results were not pretty. At an estimated 94 million deaths, Marxist-inspired Communism was the leading ideological cause of death in the 20th century.
 |
| Feminists, tackling the big issues |
Now, I’m not saying that feminists are advocating for anything silly, like, a genocide of 45% of the global population—other than those that are advocating for exactly that scenario, of course. But when the parallels are that close, and you have first world nations being led by self-professed feminists whose first act of parliament is to abandon meritocracy and to hire solely on the biological facts of one's birth, you would have to be blind not to see the looming danger.
Friday, May 20, 2016
Views from the Abyss #25: Diversity
Q. 'Progressives' often talk of a need for increased diversity. Is this a good or a bad thing?
A. It rather depends. The problem you will frequently run into when listening to anything that a 'progressive' says, is that a pinch of salt really isn't enough. Everything is doublethink, and this is no exception.
Yesterday we talked about motte and bailey rhetoric, and the unspoken 'benefits' of diversity appear to emanate from a frankly baffling application of this same line of reasoning.
Before that though, it's important to understand some of the different kinds of diversity people are talking about when they bring it up as a social value. Some are good and some are bad, as you'll see below.
• Diversity of Thought & Ideas
Absolutely this is a good thing. This is the cornerstone of intellectual exchange. All ideas should be open to discussion. All ideas should be subject to scrutiny. Any idea can be dismissed if it doesn't hold up on its own merits.
• Diversity of Aesthetic
To an extent, great! Artistic works, architecture, clothing styles, foods, the more diversity the better.
• Diversity of Cultural Norms
Here it starts to get a little grey. Religion, public behaviour, there's going to be a degree of diversity present regardless of the population, but a general sense of compliance to established social norms is generally considered to be a positive adhesive force in unifying society. Should people be given a free pass from such compliance just because their own culture doesn't share the same norms? It's a complicated issue, but the answer is fuck no.
• Diversity of Morality
No. Absolutely not. Unacceptable. Just because in your country, it's normal to verbally and physically harass women on the street, cut off bits of people's bodies at birth, throw homosexuals off buildings, behead people for their religion, and begin kickstarter campaigns for products that defy the laws of physics, doesn't mean it's acceptable here. Ever. No excuses.
I'm certain that when presented like this, each of these should be broadly self evident and difficult to disagree strongly with. And that's when the bailey begins. Let's see how these work in practice as demonstrated by 'progressives'.
• Diversity of Thought & Ideas
Hell no, I can't even. Trigger warning bitch, I'm off to the safe space to pull the fire alarm of wrong think.
'Progressives' tend to be somewhat opposed to this kind of diversity.
• Diversity of Aesthetic
Did you just culturally appropriate that poor Mexican man's burrito in exchange for your oppressive imperial coin?
When 'progressive' rhetoric is taken literally, segregation is strength, and true diversity lies in nobody being able to understand what the hell anybody else is saying. Because we'd all be forced to speak our own languages.
• Diversity of Cultural Norms & Morality (conflated for much needed brevity)
By all means, please! I want you to come and drop your goat from my parish bell-tower!
Not only do people from other nations have a right to come to our country and shit in the middle of the road, throw homosexuals off buildings, cut off pieces of newborn babies, and gang rape women with impunity, they should be actively encouraged to do so.
Yes, this is what the 'progressives' actually advocate for when they talk about a need for diversity.
But to what end? What could they possibly have to gain from this?
One possibility is that the destruction of civilisation is their goal—that would certainly be consistent with other 'progressive' rhetoric. There's always talk of revolution, destroying the establishments, smashing the patriarchy and ending gender roles, doing away with the nuclear family, the list goes on. Evidently human civilisation which has somehow fluked its way through tens of thousands of years of progress is so badly broken that only its complete annihilation can save it.
Another possibility is hubris—in this case, the belief that they genuinely have all the answers, and that the kind of world they're advocating for is going to be an actual improvement. Ideology does have the power to blind one to certain realities, and the reactions to the new year Cologne attacks certainly suggest that the blind are leading the blind, who are also leading them in return.
Or it could simply be a case of taking their half-baked stances to logical extremes for the sake of consistency, rather than travelling the slightly more challenging road of listening to other ideas and re-evaluating their own opinions. That would certainly explain their averseness to any kind of diversity of thought & ideas.
But whatever the reason is, do not be fooled by their rhetoric, for the road to hell is paved by people trying to convince 'friends' on The Facebook of the virtuosity of their good intentions.
 |
| This is closer to ideal |
Yesterday we talked about motte and bailey rhetoric, and the unspoken 'benefits' of diversity appear to emanate from a frankly baffling application of this same line of reasoning.
Before that though, it's important to understand some of the different kinds of diversity people are talking about when they bring it up as a social value. Some are good and some are bad, as you'll see below.
• Diversity of Thought & Ideas
Absolutely this is a good thing. This is the cornerstone of intellectual exchange. All ideas should be open to discussion. All ideas should be subject to scrutiny. Any idea can be dismissed if it doesn't hold up on its own merits.
• Diversity of Aesthetic
To an extent, great! Artistic works, architecture, clothing styles, foods, the more diversity the better.
• Diversity of Cultural Norms
Here it starts to get a little grey. Religion, public behaviour, there's going to be a degree of diversity present regardless of the population, but a general sense of compliance to established social norms is generally considered to be a positive adhesive force in unifying society. Should people be given a free pass from such compliance just because their own culture doesn't share the same norms? It's a complicated issue, but the answer is fuck no.
• Diversity of Morality
No. Absolutely not. Unacceptable. Just because in your country, it's normal to verbally and physically harass women on the street, cut off bits of people's bodies at birth, throw homosexuals off buildings, behead people for their religion, and begin kickstarter campaigns for products that defy the laws of physics, doesn't mean it's acceptable here. Ever. No excuses.
I'm certain that when presented like this, each of these should be broadly self evident and difficult to disagree strongly with. And that's when the bailey begins. Let's see how these work in practice as demonstrated by 'progressives'.
• Diversity of Thought & Ideas
Hell no, I can't even. Trigger warning bitch, I'm off to the safe space to pull the fire alarm of wrong think.
'Progressives' tend to be somewhat opposed to this kind of diversity.
• Diversity of Aesthetic
Did you just culturally appropriate that poor Mexican man's burrito in exchange for your oppressive imperial coin?
When 'progressive' rhetoric is taken literally, segregation is strength, and true diversity lies in nobody being able to understand what the hell anybody else is saying. Because we'd all be forced to speak our own languages.
• Diversity of Cultural Norms & Morality (conflated for much needed brevity)
By all means, please! I want you to come and drop your goat from my parish bell-tower!
Not only do people from other nations have a right to come to our country and shit in the middle of the road, throw homosexuals off buildings, cut off pieces of newborn babies, and gang rape women with impunity, they should be actively encouraged to do so.
Yes, this is what the 'progressives' actually advocate for when they talk about a need for diversity.
But to what end? What could they possibly have to gain from this?
One possibility is that the destruction of civilisation is their goal—that would certainly be consistent with other 'progressive' rhetoric. There's always talk of revolution, destroying the establishments, smashing the patriarchy and ending gender roles, doing away with the nuclear family, the list goes on. Evidently human civilisation which has somehow fluked its way through tens of thousands of years of progress is so badly broken that only its complete annihilation can save it.
Another possibility is hubris—in this case, the belief that they genuinely have all the answers, and that the kind of world they're advocating for is going to be an actual improvement. Ideology does have the power to blind one to certain realities, and the reactions to the new year Cologne attacks certainly suggest that the blind are leading the blind, who are also leading them in return.
Or it could simply be a case of taking their half-baked stances to logical extremes for the sake of consistency, rather than travelling the slightly more challenging road of listening to other ideas and re-evaluating their own opinions. That would certainly explain their averseness to any kind of diversity of thought & ideas.
But whatever the reason is, do not be fooled by their rhetoric, for the road to hell is paved by people trying to convince 'friends' on The Facebook of the virtuosity of their good intentions.
Thursday, May 19, 2016
Views from the Abyss #24: Moral Exhibitionism and Crisis-Jacking
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Views from the Abyss #23: Intolerance of Intolerance
Q. Is intolerance of intolerance morally defensible?
A. Didn't we already do this one? Alright, let's approach it from another angle.
Those that claim that intolerance of intolerance is justifiable are more often than not engaging in a motte and bailey process of rhetorical doublethink. As such, they are conflating two very different behaviours, those being:
1. Condemning an objectionably "intolerant" behaviour or action by others.
2. Attacking and demonising an individual or group for what are perceived to be objectionably "intolerant" thoughts.
What should be immediately apparent is that the first of these appears on the surface to be an entirely reasonable response to a perceived injustice, whereas the second is an utterly despicable, shameful act of bullying.
By conflating the two though, the "progressive" thinker gets to behave in accordance with the second, while justifying it with the first, and thus keeping the moral high ground in their own minds.
The human mind is very adept at rationalising—coming up with convenient excuses for why "it's not wrong when I do it." And what the "progressive" thinker fails to take into consideration, is that the individuals they're attacking also get to justify their own "intolerance" in their own minds. They think they're in the right too.
At the end of the day, the practical aspects of the "progressive" thinker's "intolerance of intolerance" is every bit as bad as the intolerance they're supposedly intolerant of.
However bad that is...
Q. Wow, these so called "progressives" really are deplorable human scum aren't they!
A. Careful now!
A. Didn't we already do this one? Alright, let's approach it from another angle.
Those that claim that intolerance of intolerance is justifiable are more often than not engaging in a motte and bailey process of rhetorical doublethink. As such, they are conflating two very different behaviours, those being:
1. Condemning an objectionably "intolerant" behaviour or action by others.
2. Attacking and demonising an individual or group for what are perceived to be objectionably "intolerant" thoughts.
What should be immediately apparent is that the first of these appears on the surface to be an entirely reasonable response to a perceived injustice, whereas the second is an utterly despicable, shameful act of bullying.
By conflating the two though, the "progressive" thinker gets to behave in accordance with the second, while justifying it with the first, and thus keeping the moral high ground in their own minds.
The human mind is very adept at rationalising—coming up with convenient excuses for why "it's not wrong when I do it." And what the "progressive" thinker fails to take into consideration, is that the individuals they're attacking also get to justify their own "intolerance" in their own minds. They think they're in the right too.
At the end of the day, the practical aspects of the "progressive" thinker's "intolerance of intolerance" is every bit as bad as the intolerance they're supposedly intolerant of.
However bad that is...
Q. Wow, these so called "progressives" really are deplorable human scum aren't they!
A. Careful now!
Friday, April 08, 2016
Views from the Abyss #22: Triangulation
Q. You previously alluded to "triangulation" as a means to approximating a truth while discussing ideologies. Could you elaborate on that?
A. Certainly.
Imagine you are an employer, and are currently recruiting for a position in your company. You've come across a resume for one Mr. E, which has taken your interest. It details work experience and qualifications, like you would expect, but it doesn't really tell you who Mr. E is as a person. So before you invite him in for an interview, you want to get an idea about who he really is, to see if he's likely to be the sort of person who'd fit your dynamic, fast paced, but family like corporate environment.
So you decide to contact someone who knows him, and ask them to tell you about him. The requirement is two sides of A4, absolute honesty, and all parties are happy to agree to this.
The problem with this approach should be immediately obvious. Depending on who you ask, you're going to get a very different response. Contradictory even. And as there is nobody that can give you an objective answer (as there is no objective answer to give), it's fair to conclude that whatever anybody tells you is going to be so heavily biased as to be utterly unreliable.
This is where triangulation comes in—let's use those biases to our advantage!
Instead of simply asking one person who knows him, let's ask several. And not just people at random, but people whose biases can be established in advance. One might, for example, choose to ask the following:
This will give us four very different perspectives. We're going to hear about him from somebody who is primarily interested in his work ethic, somebody who loves him unconditionally (or at least, should do), somebody who has developed respect for him as an adult, and somebody who has come to dislike him under the same circumstances.
All of these viewpoints will conflict and contradict each other, but this is only a problem if you take them as literal truth, and that's the last thing we intend to do. On the contrary, we know that each account is going to be heavily biased, and because we have a strong idea in what way they are biased in advance, we can easily determine which aspects of each are likely to be overstated, in order to effectively tune them out.
And with that in mind, we can begin to develop a more coherent and consistent picture of who this Mr. E is.
Q. This is all well and good, but I notice a number of flaws with this analogy. For example, what happens if they ignore your instruction and try to each give you a neutral picture? And how do you determine the coworkers that view him positively and negatively?
A. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. When used as an explanatory aid, it's perfectly acceptable for the analogy to have its own shortfalls, providing they are not also shortfalls of the phenomena being explained.
With that said though, there are weaknesses with this approach. It is not an exact science. This is why we talk in terms of approximating a truth.
A. Certainly.
Imagine you are an employer, and are currently recruiting for a position in your company. You've come across a resume for one Mr. E, which has taken your interest. It details work experience and qualifications, like you would expect, but it doesn't really tell you who Mr. E is as a person. So before you invite him in for an interview, you want to get an idea about who he really is, to see if he's likely to be the sort of person who'd fit your dynamic, fast paced, but family like corporate environment.
So you decide to contact someone who knows him, and ask them to tell you about him. The requirement is two sides of A4, absolute honesty, and all parties are happy to agree to this.
The problem with this approach should be immediately obvious. Depending on who you ask, you're going to get a very different response. Contradictory even. And as there is nobody that can give you an objective answer (as there is no objective answer to give), it's fair to conclude that whatever anybody tells you is going to be so heavily biased as to be utterly unreliable.
This is where triangulation comes in—let's use those biases to our advantage!
Instead of simply asking one person who knows him, let's ask several. And not just people at random, but people whose biases can be established in advance. One might, for example, choose to ask the following:
- His former/current boss
- His mother
- A former/current co-worker that generally thinks positively of him
- A former/current co-worker that generally thinks negatively of him
This will give us four very different perspectives. We're going to hear about him from somebody who is primarily interested in his work ethic, somebody who loves him unconditionally (or at least, should do), somebody who has developed respect for him as an adult, and somebody who has come to dislike him under the same circumstances.
All of these viewpoints will conflict and contradict each other, but this is only a problem if you take them as literal truth, and that's the last thing we intend to do. On the contrary, we know that each account is going to be heavily biased, and because we have a strong idea in what way they are biased in advance, we can easily determine which aspects of each are likely to be overstated, in order to effectively tune them out.
And with that in mind, we can begin to develop a more coherent and consistent picture of who this Mr. E is.
Q. This is all well and good, but I notice a number of flaws with this analogy. For example, what happens if they ignore your instruction and try to each give you a neutral picture? And how do you determine the coworkers that view him positively and negatively?
A. There is no such thing as a perfect analogy. When used as an explanatory aid, it's perfectly acceptable for the analogy to have its own shortfalls, providing they are not also shortfalls of the phenomena being explained.
With that said though, there are weaknesses with this approach. It is not an exact science. This is why we talk in terms of approximating a truth.
Friday, April 01, 2016
Views from the Abyss #21: Ideologues vs Rationalists
Q. When faced with the epidemic of ignorance that is modern society, how can one determine which ideas are good and which ones are bad?
A. The same way as you would differentiate between an ideologue and a rationalist.
An ideologue will try to prove to you that their ideas are right. Unfortunately, this is an ineffective approach, as personal and ideological biases ensure that it’s no harder to prove a bad idea is good as it is to prove a good one is.
People instinctively apply less scrutiny to evidence in favour of ideas they're in agreement with.
A rationalist, on the other hand, will first try to prove to themselves that their ideas are wrong, and if they fail to do so, they invite others to try. Proving that a bad idea is wrong is also easy, but proving a good idea wrong is much much harder. This is therefore the more effective approach.
It’s also a cornerstone of the scientific method.
So next time you’re approached with an idea, try to identify whether or not the idea has already been vetted. If something seems obviously wrong with it, ask the question, and it will soon become clear if there’s any rational thought gone into it.
Q. How would one deal with established "truths" that may never be questioned by pain of legal sanction?
A. If you are not permitted to attempt to disprove an established "truth", then regardless of its veracity, that "truth" becomes immediately invalid—nothing more than a baseless assertion that can be disregarded without the need for evidence or counter-argument. When a contrary position cannot be pursued, then the veracity of the assertion can no longer be proven, and as that's where the burden of proof lies, the default assumption must therefore be that the established "truth" is false.
Q. So you're saying the Holocaust wasn't real?
A. Absolutely not. Such talk is a criminal offence in some countries.
But that's kind of the point. Because it cannot be said, it therefore doesn't need to be said.
When somebody brings up the Holocaust, you can simply laugh at them and say, "Whatever you say, Levi!"
So next time you’re approached with an idea, try to identify whether or not the idea has already been vetted. If something seems obviously wrong with it, ask the question, and it will soon become clear if there’s any rational thought gone into it.
Q. How would one deal with established "truths" that may never be questioned by pain of legal sanction?
A. If you are not permitted to attempt to disprove an established "truth", then regardless of its veracity, that "truth" becomes immediately invalid—nothing more than a baseless assertion that can be disregarded without the need for evidence or counter-argument. When a contrary position cannot be pursued, then the veracity of the assertion can no longer be proven, and as that's where the burden of proof lies, the default assumption must therefore be that the established "truth" is false.
Q. So you're saying the Holocaust wasn't real?
A. Absolutely not. Such talk is a criminal offence in some countries.
But that's kind of the point. Because it cannot be said, it therefore doesn't need to be said.
When somebody brings up the Holocaust, you can simply laugh at them and say, "Whatever you say, Levi!"
Views from the Abyss #20: The Paedophile Wall
Q. I see that girl who advocates for paedophiles got fired from Nintendo for her abhorrent disgusting views. Good riddance!
A. This isn’t entirely true. If one were to generously interpret the official statement from Nintendo, it seems they’re not happy—what with their family friendly image and that—having one of their public faces using their official SNS accounts to promote a second line of work which involves removing clothes in front of a camera. When one is a public face of a corporation, and especially a family friendly one, good behaviour and lack of controversy is something one must be especially careful to maintain.
However, her advocacy of paedophilia, based on what she’s actually written, is really not being fairly represented either. Having read her thesis, it appears she holds a libertarian anti-censorship view that while child pornography that directly causes harm to children is indeed abhorrent, the venomous condemnation and subsequent illegality of artistic renderings of even milder instances of sexualisation which harms nobody is little more than morality policing—a virtue signalling competition sport even—more suited to a country that operates under Sharia law. Indeed, not only is there no proof that such materials harm children, but a negative correlation can actually be demonstrated.
Agree with her or not, she makes a solid academic case, which by itself should not be held against her personally. No idea should be beyond discussion.
However, it does bring to light an inevitable certainty—that it is only a matter of time before Western society runs headfirst into the paedophile wall.
Not so very long ago, homosexuality was persecuted. Then it was tolerated. Then it was normalised. Now it’s celebrated. In fact, fuck heterosexuality! You guys suck!
So the obvious next question is what about the paedophiles (who for the sake of this discussion are people who are sexually attracted exclusively to pre-pubescent children, for the fact of their being pre-pubescent children, regardless of whether or not they ever act on this impulse)? They too have no choice in their sexuality, and arguably they have it worse now than the homosexuals ever did, for it was only homosexual acts that were punished; paedophiles do not need to act to have their lives destroyed.
And yet, it remains unthinkable that paedophilia could ever even be tolerated, let alone accepted as a valid sexuality, and eventually be celebrated. This empathy disparity should cause major discomfort for anyone with a “progressive” mindset. When they run into the paedophile wall, they'll find themselves stuck there for a very long time, refusing to choose between two very hard truths—that either their entire philosophy is a farce, or that somewhere down the line they took a very wrong turn.
Indeed, the only way to fairly level the field, to allow paedophiles—the people, not the actions—the same validity and dignity as homosexuals, is to bring the latter back down a few rungs.
"Progressives" need to denormalise homosexuality.
This is not a popular truth, but it is one that needs to be accepted once more. Homosexuality is not a normal healthy alternative to heterosexuality. If you exclusively find members of your own sex sexually attractive, for the fact of them being the same sex, then there is something wrong with you. This is not hatred, nor is it a judgement of character or a display of pity, and you may deal with it in any way you choose, providing it only involves consenting adults.
There's no reason that you should not be afforded dignity.
There's no reason that you should not be afforded dignity.
But to keep up the pretence that it is an equal and valid alternative to heterosexuality is to live in a fantasy world. A fantasy world that proudly proclaims that “All sexualities are equal", while simultaneously parroting the caveat, “Except this one. This one here is sickening and abhorrent."
We do not have to elevate homosexuality to allow the afflicted an otherwise normal life. And when you have paedophiles who are otherwise well adjusted individuals, and have sufficient self-control to never come close to acting on their instincts (which for all we know may be the vast majority), then why can they not be allowed the same. Bring them out of the closet. Provide help and services so they can come to terms with who they are, and deal with it in a way that prevents innocents from being hurt. Show compassion, and afford basic human dignity.
You don’t want to advocate for that? You progressives sure are a bunch of disgusting hypocrites aren’t you!
Q. Well I guess that told me. Out of interest, why do you always say “homosexual” as opposed to the more popular term “gay”?
A. While the two are often used interchangeably, I find it helpful to distinguish between them. For the purposes of my ramblings, a “homosexual” is somebody that is, for all intents and purposes, exclusively sexually attracted to people of the same sex. “Gay” is an identity many choose to adopt that allows them to frame the circumstances of their existence in a more positive light.
Perhaps it would be helpful if a similar distinction was made between those who are attracted exclusively to children, and child rapists. I wouldn't hold my breath.
Q. I guess we're not as tolerant as I thought we were. How can we change our thinking about paedophiles?
A. Assuming that changing one's thinking is a desirable end goal, I propose beginning by solidifying your current thoughts on the matter.
Picture, if you will, a best case scenario. A test that can be performed on boys and girls when they reach puberty, that can identify with 100% accuracy if they are a paedophile or not. The test is administered nationally, so all the paedophiles can be found very early in their lives. Sadly, there is no cure.
What do you do with the information? Do you have them all killed? Do you have them incarcerated? Do you have them castrated?
Keep in mind that these boys and girls have committed no crime, and any persecution they face is because of the way they were born.
A similar what-if scenario was proposed by the TV show "In the Flesh", where after a zombie apocalypse, a not-quite perfect treatment is found for the "partially deceased" that allows them to regain their humanity and reintegrate into society. Needless to say, this is not a popular move, and there isn't a single right answer.
Update
Having read some of Alison Rapp's comments on SNS, it appears she really is quite incompetent at putting forward her controversial views. When you're limited to 140 characters, your comments will necessarily lack nuance, and this is unwise when nuance is everything.
Another Update
It's worth stating that certain possibilities have not been discussed here, as I specifically wanted to approach the topic from the mindset of an LGBTP advocate, and demonstrate where that mindset starts to break down. Call it a strawman if you will, but be sure to provide the reasons for why this is the case, and why you feel that invalidates any argument put forward.
One specific point of contention is the assumption that paedophilia has the same potential for stability as homosexuality. In other words, one can be homosexual and lead an otherwise normal life. Is this equally possible for paedophiles? Evidence would suggest that it is, but accurate figures are hard to come by.
There are also questions of causes and cures. If there was a cure for paedophilia, would it be morally and ethically sound to require paedophiles to take it? If there was a cure for homosexuality, then what then?
Thursday, March 31, 2016
Views from the Abyss #19: Pork Scratchings in Universities
Q. If ideologies are inherently biased, then why are social phenomena so often examined through ideological filters?
A. Because the very concept of social phenomena does not objectively exist.
People are individuals, and individuals make choices. Sometimes they do things that are the same as what other people do. Sometimes they don’t. The patterns that are identified in these behaviours, choices, attitudes etc. only exist in the imaginings of the observer.
There is no objective truth to them, and any attempt to identify an objective truth will result in a soy jerky imitation.
All is not lost though. As such phenomena cannot be described or explained without bias, ideology becomes effective in allowing you to do the precise opposite—by unapologetically embracing a bias, you anchor it, creating a stable alternative to the truth. A pork scratching, if one were to persist with the metaphor.
The trick now is to re-examine the phenomena from the viewpoint of several competing ideologies. Conservative, Behaviouralist, Marxist and Feminist are four that I’ve always found cover a reasonably broad range. From there, you can triangulate an approximation of neutrality.
It’s not an exact science, but it's the best we have. For now.
What a pity that it isn't utilised in modern universities. Students can now expect social phenomena to be taught in accordance with a single ideology, as objective truth. People are graduating university knowing less than they did when they went in.
This is not education—it’s indoctrination.
Update
Janice Fiamengo of the University of Ottawa has released a video wherein she describes this in great depth.
A. Because the very concept of social phenomena does not objectively exist.
People are individuals, and individuals make choices. Sometimes they do things that are the same as what other people do. Sometimes they don’t. The patterns that are identified in these behaviours, choices, attitudes etc. only exist in the imaginings of the observer.
There is no objective truth to them, and any attempt to identify an objective truth will result in a soy jerky imitation.
All is not lost though. As such phenomena cannot be described or explained without bias, ideology becomes effective in allowing you to do the precise opposite—by unapologetically embracing a bias, you anchor it, creating a stable alternative to the truth. A pork scratching, if one were to persist with the metaphor.
The trick now is to re-examine the phenomena from the viewpoint of several competing ideologies. Conservative, Behaviouralist, Marxist and Feminist are four that I’ve always found cover a reasonably broad range. From there, you can triangulate an approximation of neutrality.
It’s not an exact science, but it's the best we have. For now.
What a pity that it isn't utilised in modern universities. Students can now expect social phenomena to be taught in accordance with a single ideology, as objective truth. People are graduating university knowing less than they did when they went in.
This is not education—it’s indoctrination.
Update
Janice Fiamengo of the University of Ottawa has released a video wherein she describes this in great depth.
Views from the Abyss #18: Soy Jerky vs Pork Scratchings
A man goes to his local store to buy a bag of beef jerky.
They don’t have any.
What they do have is 7 or 8 different varieties of soy jerky, and some pork scratchings.
Now, while the soy jerky has been texturised and seasoned to try to get as close to the flavour and experience of eating real beef jerky as it’s reasonably plausible to get, the pork scratchings are just plain old pork scratchings.
Ten minutes later, he’s back at home enjoying a nice bag of pork scratchings with a beer, entirely satisfied with his decision.
Now some might argue that the product he settled on was actually the one that was the least like what he’d intended to purchase, but you can’ t intellectualise taste. Beef jerky and pork scratchings are both real products with unique properties. Soy jerky can only ever be a poor imitation of a superior product, and the harder it tries, the more obvious its failure.
And this, arguably, is one of the reasons that Donald Trump is so popular. People have in mind certain ideas about what an ideal president should be, and none of the candidates are even close to what that is. And while most of them try to pretend that they are, Donald Trump stands alone in… just being Donald Trump. He’s not the product they ideally want, but he’s not a poor imitation either.
In the fruitless search for real beef jerky, pork scratchings trump soy jerky every time.
In the fruitless search for real beef jerky, pork scratchings trump soy jerky every time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)