Fisk A Stranger's Comment - On Traffic Lights

The original opinion piece is in Spanish, here.

The City Hall of Madrid has changed a few crossing lights to give them a more inclusive, integrated, and egalitarian bent.  They are so kind, those humanized lights, that they would even carry us across, as if we were fording a river and they didn't want us to wet our socks.  Such lights could mediate traffic disputes to end with hugs.  Lights with proper feelings about public morality.  So no naked people?  Nobody openly drunk?  Even though the garden-topped buses failed, isn't this the best of all possible cities that could have emerged for The People to frolic in in a state of Rousseaunian grace in the paradise of New Politics?  No snide exaggeration there, nosiree.

On seeing the new figures, I was reminded of the solitary dignity of that Ampelmännchen of East Germany, who insisted on wearing a hat, when only nostalgic characters created by Garci did anymore.  Its creator, Karl Peglau, thought the East German authorities would not permit it, since the hat was a bourgeois attribute of dress.  But the Little Man stayed, fearing deportation, Fucking really, deportation is the worst you can think of? until Reunification made him one of Ostalgia's favorite memories, the German homestead.  I think I've seen little men in hats on the lights in Santander, and I shouldn't be surprised.  A city with that sense of elegance, and that rain, easily makes the standard description of its citizens one with an Italina fedora, or at least a rain hat.  Sooo, is it cool for the lights to represent a figure apart from the people in the city or not?  Now you're saying that it's perfectly normal for crossing lights to reflect the people on the street.

The new figures on Madrid's crossing lights are fruit of City Hall's attempt to take on all positive values, as if they were the province of Podemos alone.  But in trying to be inclusive they have created a sticky problem.  We had taken for granted that the old figure represented us all and that we were all invited to cross in safety when it turned green.  Now things have changed.  Uh, damn right things have changed.  We took straight white religious men to be the default human in the past and now we're trying to make everybody equally human.  If you can't see a reflection of yourself in a symbolic representation of a possible human then - YOU DON'T THINK IT IS HUMAN.  That is the problem.  That's what people are working to change.  Not creating little balls of snowflakes, but a blizzard of varied humanity.  Now you have to be personally invited, like homosexual couples.  Actually there are heterosexual couples too.  And if there's discrimination or confusion for anybody, it's single people who don't have a hand to hold.  Is that your real problem, it reminds you of having to walk in pairs as a schoolboy and you always had to hold hands with the weird kid?  And why the fuck do you have a problem with inviting different people to make sure they feel welcome?  Is it actually true that you just want to keep your he-man woman hater gay basher xenophobe club?  Does a fat man have to wait until the silhouette of Alfred Hitchcock turns green before he crosses?  Are fat people not people?  Because if two ladies in skirts appear, how does he know he's allowed to cross?  How did ladies in skirts know before, you ass?  Especially ladies who liked to walk hand in hand.  They were pretty clear about the fact that they weren't welcome to cross, or be anywhere on the street really.  Does the punk have to wait until he sees a light with a mohawk?  What do I do if I go to cross with my children and the light doesn't have an adult man surrounded by little people?  What if the light isn't for a large family?  I don't know, what did mothers do before?  Oh, right, nothing they could have to say is nearly as important as your ego stroked by being reflected on every single crossing light in the city.  Am I only allowed to cross holding the hand of the man next to me and leaving my offspring behind?  Well, they can hold hands with each other.  Unless you have an odd number of kids, then somebody's screwed.  You say the lights are inclusive, but I don't see a fat gay punk family guy light anywhere.  You sure have a tame picture for a fat gay punk family guy.  Must be an old one.  Or one for a fishmonger.  Or a jogger.  Or a horse rider.  Or a guy with a beard.  Or a misanthrope.  Or somebody pissing themselves.  Or wearing a tie.  Or an old man with a cane.  Or...  Like I said before, the problem is you think you really are the only real human because you've been the default for so long.  You expect others to see their humanity reflected in you but you won't take even a second to find yours in them.  You are a lazy, fearful, arrogant basket of rotten rats' assholes.  But I bet you think your picture should still signal all humans, except the ones your behavior shoves out as soon as they show up.  The most mind boggling thing about arguments like this is that people think they are actually saying something intelligent!  It's simply incredible.  They mewl about the most insignificant and meaningless problems, only to turn around and say that the other side is too sensitive.  Oh, the problems of the top dog.  Should we put that on a street light for you?  Or do you not want to be bothered by reading?  If we just put words on the crossing lights we could do away with all the symbolism you so fear, but then everybody would have to be literate, and really you need something to help you imagine how much better you are than the dregs, right?  The dregs that can't even recognize that you represent every human being on earth while they represent only themselves.

The End (What I Thought In January)

I had a regular compulsion during the 2016 presidential election: I would google image search Spanish Civil War posters and stare at them, especially the Republican ones.  There was something so melancholy about them.  "They thought they were right," I said to myself, "They thought they were on the right side of history."

It's a sad parallel to my current vision of my country of birth.  We thought for eight years that we were moving, ever so slowly, into enlightenment.  Even with a few mis-steps and stumbles, like a "stolen" election and a mandate for that stealer in the next one, we were on the road to something better.  The American Experiment was continuing to produce hopeful results, in spite of the disappointing ones.  We had a minority president; we allowed homosexuals to legally marry nationwide; even in the face of terrorism, we tried to stand up for our values of diversity and individual liberty.  Then came the campaign of 2016.

First, a businessman who came off as an ignorant and short-tempered buffoon won the nomination of a major party.  He counted among his supporters a loud number of "anti-SJWs", although they were mostly a loud minority.  The troubling thing is that past politicians saw campaigns and careers lost with a mere hint of association with the likes of the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups.  This time, few people cared enough to stop taking his campaign seriously and start taking his threats seriously. There were voices of alarm about what he planned to do to "help" the inner cities and the economy as a whole, but little notice was taken on a broad scale.  Fears were centered in liberal populations.  The media refused to take him or his support seriously, giving us assurances that his opponent would win, even if the victory was by a narrow margin.  Then, we woke to shocking headlines on November 9.

We have had bad presidents before, either unpopular, or incompetent, or both.  This time, the threat is not the man in the post himself, it is his braying entourage, who despise the very framework of the government they are to be part of.  A number of writers have taken to their outlets to try to explain to us disillusioned liberals why those who supported their adversary thought it was the right thing to do.  Many examples do little to convince me of their good intentions.  Perhaps fittingly, the only place I found the explanations not only believable, but also truly clarifying was a comedy website.  I admit freely that I do not understand conservatives, and I have done very little to remedy that.  Like most of us, I stay in a fairly tight bubble of information that lets me feel good about my values and tell myself that those on the other side are mistaken or deliberate hypocrites.  How can my country be full of such people, at least in a concentration that can't be diluted with other groups?  I feel a bitter schadenfreude upon seeing tweets and posts from Trump voters who whine about the possibility of losing their Medicare or access to women's health care at centers like Planned Parenthood.  I nod sagely, thinking to myself that they should have known a politician, even an amateur one, would try to keep at least a couple of campaign promises.  My liberal heart tells me they don't really deserve to lose those, or any, services, but it's so easy to say, "They were asking for it."

This is one of the differences between liberals and conservatives in a broad description: Liberals feel compassion for those who are suffering, even if through their own actions, while conservatives trust that there is some kind of cosmic justice at work when people are suffering.  As I said, a broad description, one that has room for many exceptions on both sides.  Do you see how liberal I am?  Our compassion and our need to try to be fair can be exploited by those who have narrower targets and stronger ambitions.  We hesitate to block any progress just because it isn't going in the direction we want.  We want both sides to have a turn, and when there are instances of bad behavior, we often try to find examples from the other side, for balance.  Or something.

Now, some groups are calling for resistance, telling us that the tactics of the other side, now seen more as enemies than ever, are the ones to adopt.  No wishy-washiness, no appeals to fairness.  Now is the time to double down and obstruct.  There are also voices bemoaning the very suggestion, reminding us that we should be better than our enemies, and we should keep hold of the moral high ground.  It is an easy thing for most of them to say, coming as they do from comfortable circumstances.  We are reminded that we as a nation and as a collection of groups have survived other bad times and bad actions on the part of our presidents.  But, as the new resistance will be quick to tell you, we didn't all survive.  The most vulnerable may be overlooked at best by a "progressive" administration, but they could very well be targeted by this one.  People are afraid.  Not that they might have to pay a little more tax to fund a public school or hospital, not that they will not be allowed to use their position as employers to dig into their employees' personal beliefs, not that they might have to be reminded that people who have attractions different from their own exist.  Those fears will probably exist forever anyway.  People are afraid that they will be denied jobs, health care, services, and even "right to life" because of factors beyond their control.  People are afraid of being denied any possibility of control over those factors, even where it is possible.  I, personally, am probably in little danger.  But I have been raised to value fairness, and those fears seem deeply unfair to me.

This is actually what makes me most angry about our last election.  It seems to have validated aggressive and obnoxious behavior to the point where it is the only way to make your voice heard.  I might have hesitated to condemn criticism in the past, or tried to be fair about dishing it.  Now, I think the best thing we can do it criticize, and do so unmercifully.  We can avail ourselves of all the raw emotion in the world, and all the black-and-white viewpoints.  The goal is to block every single thing that might be proposed.  If the opposition are spineless, they must be voted out or removed to jeering voices.  We can never "wait and see" again, because we are risking our future.

Those posters seemed like an odd thing over the summer of 2016, but in November they came to be more like a premonition.  The Spanish Republic was fighting fascism, and lost.  Not, they say, because of the objective supremacy of the Nationalist army, but because of their own lack of union. There are posters promoting their strength in diversity.  There are posters pointing out the heartlessness of the enemy.  In the end, all for nothing.  True, we arrived at this place through our own democratic process, not through insurrection and civil war.  But the conflict of values is similar: diversity versus homogeneity; secularism versus religion; international relationships versus isolationism.  We know the quote about fascism coming to America, being as American as possible. It is up to us to make sure the definition of America is never limited to "fascist".

Do Your Morals Think?

The greatest gotcha question believers think they can ask an atheist seems to be, "But where do you get your morals from?"  Their smug promotion of this question makes it seem as if we all get our morals and values through some kind of divine ESP, without requiring any sort of human support for what gets transmitted to us.  At least, that is how it should be, but we certainly do receive teaching and reinforcement of what are moral actions from the people around us.  Are our parents playing God when they tell us not to lie?  Are our teachers doing so when they tell us to treat our classmates well? And what about our friends who tell us we said something offensive last night at the bar after a few drinks?  Obviously, our morals come from other people in our society, not directly from on high.  "But, but, but what about the original morals?" believers may whine.  It does not take much imagination to think that these so-called original morals were worked out through trial and error, much as we continue to refine our social morality today.

Still, many believers are not comfortable without some kind of scripture to lean on, a physical testament of the accepted behavior of followers of whatever supernatural being.  The Ten Commandments (cue angelic choirs) is trotted out in Western Countries to fill this role, despite the fact that Christians' own New Testament supposedly makes them unnecessary and perhaps supersedes them with the more loving Beatitudes.  Hardly anybody learns the Beatitudes, however.  Nobody demands to post them outside the court house or city hall.  It is always those Ten Commandments.  Now, several internet writers pointed out just over a year ago that the Seven Tenets of the Satanic Church were actually more moral and better guides to good behavior than the ever-so-sacred Commandments.

It comes down to this: The Seven Tenets put the responsibility on the individual to act in kind and unharmful ways towards others; the Commandments demand obedience without explanation.  Those who follow religious teachings do so without analysis or understanding, even when they are asked to understand their obedience.  It would be difficult to pay serious attention to the Tenets without understanding the reasons, goals, and results.  Without blind obedience, there must be thought and decision-making.  For this reason, atheists have said that believers have no real morality of their own, since they do what they are told, whatever it is.  This is how people commit great crimes as a people, by adhering to obedience to authority instead of true morality, or at least a morality that recognizes the value of the individual.

Woody Guthrie - Songs Of The People

What else does a people have that holds them together like song?  And who holds on to that song like a folk singer?  Folk singers, like Woody Guthrie, keep the soul of a people or a nation bright and shiny, ready to face its past, present, and future with bravery and optimism.

Guthrie's life began appropriately for a folk hero - in a poor, rural family in a "less respectable" part of the country.  Tragedy left its mark, with a sister dying in a house fire, a mother whose illness led her to an institution before her death, and a father whose financial dreams ended in failure.  Both parents were musical - Guthrie learned a variety of traditional songs from both of them.  The oil boom in his Oklahoma town ended in the 1920s, leaving Guthrie amidst a population of disappointed inhabitants, all with motivation for mobility.  The tragedies of his early life forged Woody Guthrie's humor and wandering personality, his need for the freedom of the road.  For the rest of his life, he would change homes and coasts a number of times, often leaving his family behind.  As he moved, he composed songs about the work programs of the Depression, patriotism and duty to country during World War II, and always about the regular people who were the basis of that country.  His friends and musical collaborators also made names for themselves: Pete Seeger; Lead Belly; Sonny Terry; and many more besides.  Their group of performers preserved traditional songs, and wrote new ones about the issues affecting the people of the day, including unions, peace, politics, and human rights.  Guthrie began to show erratic behavior on his last road trips in the early '50s, eventually being diagnosed with Huntington's Disease, the same disorder that had killed his mother.  Another generation of musicians was being inspired by Guthrie's work in the '50s and.  '60s, and some of them visited him in the hospital.  Bob Dylan in particular was enthralled with Guthrie's music and played Guthrie's own songs for him in his hospital bed.  Woody Guthrie died in 1967, leaving pages of words, published or not, hours of recordings, and a love of life carried on by his friends.

What does folk music mean today?  Is it just a relic of a past, where people spent time together, paying attention to each other and carrying out common activities?  The views of Woody Guthrie and his contemporaries seem to indicate that folk music cannot become a fossil from a past time if the people still make music for themselves.  We do not have to sing about nobles or ladies lost, but songs of our own pain and joy tap into the same need.  Professional music might be more available today than it was in the past, but the songs that we sing to ourselves, in the shower, in the car, at the bar, are our new folk music.  Folk songs do not need to come from unknown or anonymous sources, they only need to reflect the feelings of the folk and be simple enough for amateur performance.  Guthrie was, in fact, a great supporter of "sharing culture" before that was a thing, encouraging people to freely share and perform his music.

The folk musician and folk music itself must connect on some deep level with the listeners, giving them a story they identify with in a way that stays in their heads.  A way they can relive any time they like.  Woody Guthrie and artists like him tell us what is in our hearts and souls when we cannot see it ourselves.  We might think that folk songs are simply laments from the powerless, or at most a call to action that only the most irritated will heed.  However, folk music describes the human condition in all its glory and its filth, insisting that we look upon our mistakes and our excesses as well as our problems and joys.  Guthrie was a fervent anti-fascist and had a keen eye for social injustice of all kinds.   His songs celebrate outlaws, not as criminals, but as vigilantes fighting a cruel and corrupt system.  How many heroes of traditional songs fought an unjust king or lord?  How many highwaymen took from a wealthy traveler to feed a poor peasant family a la Pretty Boy Floyd?  Guthrie's vision reflects a universal human reality, a desire for justice and righteousness, a good world for all of us.  For this reason, his work can only be called true "folk".

Emotional Labor

Although it seems like it ought to be a fundamental part of human relationships, emotional labor does not get a lot of popular press.  I have seen it mentioned by name only in "SJW" spaces.  I suppose that other thinkers in other spaces might consider the idea too basic to be examined, and yet there does appear to be a need for it when so many have so much dissatisfaction with their relationships.

Emotional Labor is defined as the effort a person puts into maintaining and deepening connections to another person, usually in the context of a romantic relationship, but friendships are also scenes for this kind of effort to be put forth.  This effort is time and energy spent listening to the other person, both soothing when there is trouble and supportive when they are joyful.  While we might assume that this kind of effort comes naturally to humans as a social species, we should also remember that we must be trained to have empathy with one another as children.  While the capacity might be natural, its performance might need to be cultivated.  The romantic notion of a relationship often consists of two people performing this labor for each other, at much the same level and intensity, but romance is basically a fantasy and a poor version of reality to pay attention to.  The truth is that we do not have very good role models for emotional labor; the media presents only the happy ever after stories and the feel-good marriages and partnerships; our parents were raised on much the same stories and could very well be living under the same misunderstanding of human relationships as we might be.  We assume that relationships - "romantic", friendships, work and neighborly acquaintanceships - ought to come naturally, and we should not have to put forth much effort at all, if any.  In fact, we see a person who requires attention to thrive as an adult as "high-maintanence", particularly if that person is a woman.

Now we come to an interesting gender divide in this subject.  While all of us assume that relationships should be easy to be of any worth, the simple truth is that if nobody does any work, the relationship will wither and die.  There are different expectations of this work from different partners in our society.  It falls to women to do the majority of the emotional labor, because we have the cultural idea that women are naturally more "caring" and "nurturing" while men are stoic and practically emotionless when it comes to other people.  Hence, a woman who demands emotional labor from her partner is labelled "high-maintenance", while she is expected to care and coo over everything that occurs in her partner's life.  This is not even limited to established relationships; men in our society often assume a woman, any woman, will and should be willing to listen to him.  He might just want a friendly chat, or he might want to get some problem off his chest, but he sees any woman in his environment as a potential sounding board.  This might account for the dumbfounded fury some men display when strangers refuse to engage with them.  Without being consciously aware, they are going along with the subliminal cultural context that men talk and women listen appreciatively.  Even in established relationships, the male part normally has the expectation that he will be taken seriously, while the female part has the expectation that she will be depended on for emotional support.

Why does it matter if different members of a relationship perform different tasks?  Could it not be taken as similar to household chores, for example, where each person does their part, but chores are distributed between them?  There is nothing wrong with this in theory, but the result is the previously described gender divide.  There is no dialog and agreement about how best to maintain the relationship over the long term, but an assumption that provokes anger when challenged.

Taking into account the presumption from strangers, it is easy to see how this is a problem for women. However, it can also be less than ideal for men as well.  Human beings are a social species.  We have a need to interact with each other and feel a sense of belonging to a group.  While men are excused from effort, they are thus disconnected from one of the prime ways of forging bonds with other human beings - interpersonal communication.  When men are not "allowed" to have deep feelings, much less share them, they are caught in a not fully developed role in the human play.  The accepted interactions between men in our society have a tendency to be superficial or outright competitive rather than truly friendly.

So, if we accept that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, what should be done to find a solution?  First of all, I would propose that we reexamine what it means to have a good relationship with another person.  Our society has developed a view of individualism and independence that borders on obsessive.  I repeat, we assume that our relationships with others must be easy, or they are not worth the trouble.  The most important thing is our individual comfort level at all times.  In order to promote healthier relationships, which are based on interpersonal connection, we need to place more importance on doing emotional labor, and not being in the most comfortable position at all times.  We need to value empathy and sympathy, those qualities we need to understand each other and want the best for each other.  Most of all, we need to stop seeing emotional labor as "women's work" and reinterpret it as a human requirement for a functional society based on the feeling of belonging to that society.  As a job for the ladies, emotional labor is unimportant and to be ignored (a topic for another essay, if not more).  As a human duty, emotional labor is the backbone of a culture of caring and humanity.

Once we accept that Emotional Labor is as necessary to happy existence as physical or intellectual labor, we might find it necessary to include training for it in our educational system.  We already value the teaching of facts and physical fitness, and to some extent even critical thinking.  We do not, however, see the need to train our children from the start of their academic life in the skills for taking care of relationships, perhaps because of the aforemenioned assumption that these skills are natural and there is no need to improve them in normal people.  It is true that there is some instruction of small children when it comes to sharing or not hurting others, physically or emotionally.  Still, this teaching ends once the real academic rigors begin, perhaps before children's ages are in double digits.   Where does further training come from?  From the family, from the media, from friends who have little experience themselves.  None of these sources may recognize the problems of not distributing the burden of emotional labor species-wide, leading to uncomfortable situations at best.

Emotional Labor is a human duty as it improves the human condition.  All of us are responsible for providing it to those we care about, or hope to have care about us.  We need, for our own betterment and survival, to learn to respect it and those who do it for us.

The Cowardice of Agnostics

It is probably necessary to first clearly differentiate "agnostics" as a noun and group identity from "agnostic" the adjective.  When used in terms of religious or spiritual belief, "agnostic" generally means a person who cannot know for sure whether a particular deity exists or not.  Some see this as the most reasonable approach, since we have never been able to prove the existance of any god, and, as is often said, absence of proof is not proof of absence, so the deity in question is not disproved either.  The Agnostic takes the description as a label, and a mark of pride.  It represents the rationality that many see as a high-level achievement in the face of blind belief.  Without proof, it is sheer folly and risk to proclaim a belief.  And here the trouble begins.

While agnostics and atheists agree that no god has been proved to exist, atheists take the step of living their lives under a moral code with no need of any god.  They accept the existence of reality as a necessary given in order to interact with their own existence and others'.  Agnostics must remain "unconvinced" of reality, since anything we could use to prove it still hinges on the acceptance that something does exist.  We make a leap of faith for the sake of convenience, even without any faith to go with it.  Believers follow what they assume to be the rules laid out by their deities for good living; atheists keep the rules that they have been taught and have seen to be useful, throwing out the harmful ones; what kind of morality can Agnostics have?  They might put themselves in the atheist camp, saying their moral code is based on observation and utility.  However, why would they not use a religious moral code, for the sake of convenience?  Of course, many probably do, but deny its origin when pressed.  If one really is not sure of the existence of a law-giving deity, or lack thereof, Pascal's Wager seems like the most reasonable thing to latch on to.  If you truly cannot be sure that some god is not looking over your shoulder and counting your sins, why would you pretend not to care?  The veneer of rationality wins no divine friends.  As David Silverman has said, the Agnostic is really an atheist, but does not want to say so.  There might be real psychological reasons to do so, but it still looks like a person fooling themselves.

So, when it comes to doing what we want, Agnostics follow the atheist example.  But, when it comes to social regulations, are they similarly unconvinced?  It seems, and I am sorry to say this is purely anecdotal, that Agnostics will always stand with theists when push comes to shove.  When the debate arises, the majority tend to favor a religious background for applying and proposing laws.  While I argued that Agnostics would do better acting as if they believed for their own convenience, I find it irritating that they pretend to have no debt to religion in their personal life, but are happy to assign debt to others.  I assume - yes, a dangerous thing to do - that the Agnostics' agreement with theists in the public sphere has to do more with the sheer numbers of theists than with any arguments they might have.  Hiding under the not-quite-atheist wing in one's personal life is only to avoid any labels of superstition, but if religion has anything over rationality, it is the power to control.  Of course, there is no philosophy of agnosticism that requires a code of conduct, but believer or not, a great many people want nothing more than to control those around them.

Finally, I come to my great accusation.  Because Agnostics do not honestly say how they come by their morality or how they propose moraity for others, they are liars.  Because they do not accept the reality that openly doubting a deity is tantamont to atheism, and they hide under their cloak of "impossible to know", they are cowards.  An agnostic person is rational in the lack of knowledge we have may not be remedied.  An Agnostic wants only to parade a lack of decision as a virtue.

Corruption

There is a joke that goes something like,"I want an end to corruption.  Or at least more opportunity to participate."  We say this or hear it, and we laugh, thinking that the joke is obvious.  Nobody would really admit to wanting to be a part of a corrupt system for the fun of it, would they?  Nobody would admit to wanting to be a part of a corrupt system at all, unless they did not mind being thought of as one of the bad guys.  And not one of the cool bad guys, some sort of evil bureaucrat.  Yet, not so long ago I heard somebody make a statement that was essentially that.  No, he did not say that he wanted to be a part of the corruption, he merely stated that there was no problem with corruption existing - as long as "people lived well".  Really, is there a problem with anything in that case?  There is no system under which every single person lives well, although some do a significantly better job than others in making sure there is a minimum level of dignity available to the citizen body.  We must admit that the vast majority of, if not every, governing system is by no means immune to corruption, and will be affected by some amount of people taking advantage in ways they should not.  Since it is unavoidable, should we simply accept it?  Should we not work to reduce the incidence of corruption, since this could be seen as a waste of time and energy?  Is it worth it to say that corruption is "bad"?

First, the obvious argument is if we accept corruption simply because it is common despite the law, we have to say the same about other crimes.  If we cannot fight against or consider corruption bad, why would we do so for theft?  Or the various forms of assault?  Or murder?  The desire to commit these crimes can be seen as "natural", the same as the desire to find a benefit for ourselves at the expense of others.  If one natural desire is acceptable despite its harm, why not the others?  Insisting that the prevalence of corruption means that we should not spend time working against it is rather an insult to doctors and the medical profession as a whole as well.  Illness and injury are not just common, they are absolutely unavoidable.  Every single person on Earth will come down with at least a cold or twist an ankle at least once.  But if these things are universal, why bother fighting them?  We cannot keep everyone's health perfect forever.  Medicine is a losing proposition.  A waste of energy and resources.  While some people would in fact make a similar argument, they are on the fringe of ideas about how to deal with health care.  Saying that the commonness of corruption should protect it from attack is the same line as saying the ubiquitousness of colds make medicine a waste.

Let us go to a deeper level.  We can agree that health problems deserve to be taken care of because nobody wants or deserves to be sick or injured.  Why should corruption fall under the umbrella of undesireables?  There must be some kind of identifiable harm that comes from corruption that makes it necessary to fight it.  What is the harm?  My partner in conversation specifically said that corruption was all right as long as people lived well.  Can people live well under a corrupt system?  Absolutely.  But do all people live well?  Absolutely not. This is the key to the issue.  When a fair, or mostly fair, system is in place, those who get the shaft have recourse.  They can press for redress of grievances and demand that their rights be respected.  Under a fair and just system, every citizen should have the same rights and importance before the law.  The very essence of corruption is that only a few have access to those avenues, and the rest of the citizenry must keep quiet, lest they find themselves in danger of losing what they do have.

This is the true danger of corruption: It increases the distances between the regulars and the privileged, and leaves the non-privileged out in the cold.  It solidifies a ruling class and a social hierarchy that will perpetuate itself, relying on nepotism and bribery to find leaders.  There is no possibility of social movement or development.  Even when corrupt leaders are canny enough to make sure the masses have enough toys to distract them from their lack of power and opportunity, anyone who wishes to be treated as a full person without the benefit of being in the upper ranks will have to pay for the privilege.  Those who cannot pay will never be given the slightest consideration.  There we have the heart of the matter: Not a single person is seen as a person.  Even the privileged are but cogs in the larger machine.  Those on the bottom?  They will never ascend if not by force.  If merit and rights do not exist, the only way to make a better life for oneself is to destroy those who have better lives and usurp their position.  Corruption, in the end, only encourages revolution, and violent revolution at that.  A system of rights and merit, at least in theory, gives opportunities to those without means and allows for peaceful transition between social strata. The fact that no system is perfect should not discourage us from seeking to perfect the system we live under.

Fisk a Stranger's Comment - On the Woman-Caused Apocalypse

1. I find that you are all out of your elements here; you might say that this isn’t going to happen, that it’s all a grand lie of some sort, but mark my words, it’s going to happen. People thought Galileo was wrong too; do you want to go there?

   People thought Galileo was wrong because all the methods of confirming reality at the time showed him to be wrong.  He had some stunningly innovative ideas, but he couldn't actually prove them at the time.

   Personally, my calculations have lead me to believe that women are going to be responsible for the dissolution of western civilization for at least several reasons:

   1. Women have an innate desire to bond with strong men in order to provide for their families, 

   "Innate"?  Not taught over the years?  And reinforced with the fact that women are simply not given the same economic opportunities as men in general?

   but in modern democratic societies they can use their votes to take money from those that are well-off in order to provide for themselves and their multiple offspring from multiple men.

   Are you saying that every woman with more than one child has been seeking a variety of contributions to her gene pool?  Aren't you lovely?  Besides that, women who are actually in the position of being the mothers of children from different fathers are not in a position to vote for money to come to them in many cases.

    Giving the vote to women was one of western civilization’s biggest mistakes, next to ditching monarchy in favor democracy because it allows those who don’t contribute society to take the resources of others by standing in a line and pulling a lever. 

   Assuming democracy has even granted them the vote to begin with, and that they choose to exercise their right.

   Women are the worst at thinking only in the short term, and this, combined with their innate need to be protected by and fed by a strong man, will cause them to steal resources from the propertied classes via voting. Eventually, they will run out of resources and cause economic and infrastructural collapse

   Uh, this will happen anyway, since every single human being on the planet uses resources without thinking that much about their provenance or future, woman or not.

   2. Women only think in the short term,

   Wait, I thought we were the worst at that!  Now it's the only thing we do?

    rarely do they ever think ahead and this is evidenced by the fact that they sleep with men who abandon them and their children all the time, and then use the state alpha male apparatus to swipe up taxes to feed themselves and their deprived children.

   It's amazing what sexual desire can do to you.  It's almost like we should teach people that sex isn't that important or give them options to avoid pregnancies or something.

    Because women only think in the short term, they will often purchase various goods that they don’t need, and will in doing so contribute to environmental devastation.

   Waaaaaaait a minute, that's just capitalism!  Now you have a problem with capitalism?

    The planet cannot produce resources at a rate fast enough to satisfy the needs of women. 

   Because, of course, men don't use any resources at all. 

   Their failure to think ahead will ensure that they vote for tyrants and support political orders which will ensure short term gains in favor of long term gains.

   But everybody acts like that these days.  Politicians especially, only thinking to the next election.

   3. Women have a desire to breed with men who show traits of classical masculinity,

   Those traits would be what exactly? 

    and will thus breed with societies which give birth to more primitive men; 

   So classically masculine men are Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons? 

   they will support rampant immigration (again, they can’t think ahead and they think that the government can pay for the upkeep of everyone, immigrants included), which will bring men who do not share western values into the west. The immigrants, legal or not, shall be given the right to vote (most likely by women, who will want more of them) 

   Or by the society of individual rights that they want to join because that's how it works. 

   and they will use their right to vote to support the entry of more immigrants into their society.

   To form a community since you won't let them into yours. 

   These men will refuse to integrate into our society, 

   They might refuse, but you also refuse to make a place for them.  It works two ways, bucko. 

   and with their hatred of all things western and their unenlightened views, they will cause strife in the west and bring our society to its knees.

   Don't you wish.
   
   You’re gonna wish you listened to common sense when all of this “progress” of yours has dragged society off a cliff.
   
   Too bad there's not much common sense here to listen to, just lunatic ravings and paranoia.  If society really goes off a cliff, I wonder who will really be to blame for that?

Do We Hate Humanity?

There are a few people who we define as misanthropes, meaning unfriendly, ungenerous, even hateful people.  They "hate" others, not as specific groups or individuals, but despising the species as a whole.  They do not socialize with glee.  They do not revel in romance.  However, we should remember that there are numerous medical conditions that prevent people from behaving like the interested, loving beings we assume everyone should be.  In fact, having an introvert type personality sucks the fun out of much socializing.  This does not mean that introverts, paranoiacs, the pathologically shy, or the socially anxious actually hate all those around them.  So is there anyone who really does?

First, let us clarify what we mean by hate in this discussion.  It is not meant to be simple avoidance, which is the behavior of the introverts and the anxious.  A great many so-called saints would also be misanthropes under this definition, and it does not make a lot of sense to say a holy person hates humanity (although it may be true, as we will see later).  Many hermits seek lives of solitude in order to help humanity rather than harm it, be that by collecting wisdom from the universe, performing experiments undisturbed, or praying the days away.  Hermits do not just avoid people, they avoid distractions to making themselves useful, and are perfectly happy to share results when these are found.  To truly hate humanity, there must be a desire for its destruction.  It is easy enough to see those who plan and attempt physical destruction of humans as haters, but they are not the only ones.  Just as abuse is not only physical, but also emotional and psychological, so too hatred of humanity.  The hater may not wish to simply eliminate a body from the planet, but the very essence of humanity, even while preserving bodies to do service.  They reject what makes us human because they hate it or fear it.

Well, then.  What does make us human?  What is often hated and feared?  There are actually two sides to this answer.  On one side, we have the characteristics that separate us from other animals: the capacity for critical thought; highly developed technology; flexibility in the face of change.  On the other, we have those characteristics that show that we are animals: sexual desire and activity; pregnancy and birth; physical sensations and appetites; the entire working of the body.  It is actually not that short a list.  It may very well be that no person or group hates every one of those characteristics, and so should not be considered to hate all of humanity.  Let us examine.

One of the things we insist separates us from the animals is our sense of ourselves and our abilities to think in complex ways.  There have been a large number of groups and societies over time which have not supported these activities among their members.  Highly social minded or communal societies reject individualism and importance placed on one person out of the group.  While the existence of a single person in a single body is not debated, the importance of that single person is.  In societies of that sort, all loyalty is toward the group, not to oneself or one's particular loved ones.  How could this be hating humanity, if the goal of the society is to perpetuate itself?  After all, a society needs people.  This is what I mean when I say those who reject human characteristics reject (and hate) humanity.  The very things that make us human are squelched and repressed.  What about critical thinking and problem solving?  Surely, even the most bee-like of human societies must have a need to solve problems!  Yes, naturally, but it is unlikely that individuals will be expected to solve many problems on their own.  They will be expected to follow orders from higher-ranked individuals, those who have been given the special distinction of problem solving.  Furthermore, those problems have to be deemed worth the trouble by some higher-up.  The problems of the individual are nothing in the face of society-wide problems, which is not altogether unreasonable, but the lack of flexibility and allowance for personal choice does not support a respect for humanity.

Continuing on the line of problem solving, we as humans have developed vast amounts of technology to make our lives more enjoyable.  At nearly every turn, somebody has protested.  Not all protests are irrational and contrarian, some are based on legitimate concerns about the consequences of new technology.  Even those famous grumblers, the Luddites, were responding to the real problems of machines creating a shrinking job market and the subsequent rise in poverty, homelessness and needy people with no place in the new, technological, society.  Nevertheless, keeping in mind our problem-solving skills, we should be able to prevent or remedy many of the consequences of our development.  There are always unforeseen consequences, of course, but by encouraging creativity and critical thought among all individuals, we could perhaps build a better society for all.  One particular development of humanity, which is often used to distinguish us from other animals, is language.  We have complex oral and gestural ways of communicating with each other that other animals seem not to have developed to any degree anywhere near to ours.  Not only that, but we graphically record our language and save it or send it to be received at another time or place.  While nobody can deny that animals make sounds that send messages, and use body language, those sounds are not nearly as many as we can produce.  It may be that smell is a more important means of communication for animals, mammals at least.  To return to the topic at hand, one might think that nobody rejects or despises language as a concept.  This may be true, but it is also true that there is very little respect for communication.  Translators and interpreters can attest to this.  Language teachers are also witnesses to the phenomenon.  The accuracy of translation is of secondary importance, if that.  The foreign language is seen as a secret code for the native one.  There is much discussion on the underlying meaning of words and language, not to mention degrees of complexity and difficulty.  Human languages are varied in terms of grammar and sound banks, and to some they represent different understandings of reality.  Without respect for the language as a tool of communication, we have no respect for a fundamental aspect of being human, our complex means of communication.

The advancement in technology can produce great changes in a society, such as those protested by the aforementioned Luddites, but most people are able to adjust to new situations with little trouble.  There are some people, however, who do their very best to block every bit of change that comes their way.  We might be generous when they refuse to buy cell phones or a tablet, but some people cannot abide any changes in their society whatsoever.  Those who protect their personal lives know that those around them will continue to change, and they are only holding themselves back, in case of negative results they might say.  On the other hand, there are any number of people who will do anything possible to prevent anyone from enjoying technological progress.  These are people who complain about new drugs and treatments for medical conditions, the development of safety features in our surroundings, the promotion of new ideas about treating others with dignity.  This last one is perhaps the easiest to identify as a stance of hatred, although it may be aimed at one particular group of humans rather than all.  Still, many reformers and activists have tried to instill in us the feeling that no human is respected if deny any humans their humanity.  People who refuse to amend their concepts of different groups are in danger of being hateful rather than mere followers of common knowledge.

Part of our success as a species must surely be our adaptability to new circumstances.  Even if individuals are slow to accept change, as a species we have developed a broad variety of strategies to exist in a broad variety of climates and  situations.  We also adjust our behavior and attitudes when changes arise in those climates and situations.  Some people, however, refuse to change, much like with new technology.  Continuing the similarities, they also refuse to allow others to change.  They might be mainly benign, like the Amish, or they might be hindering progress and protection of society, like those who insist on social roles based on groups rather than individual desire and talent.  They refuse to use one of our human talents for the improved survival of humanity, often due to questions of financial gain.

The other side of the coin, this hatred and rejection of the cerebral, "special" human, is the rejection of what makes us animals.  It seems to center mainly around reproduction, although the body is also a focus of disgust and horror.

Pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing are things which are considered natural, but have been disgusting to various degrees over time.  The "naturalness" of these things may lead some people to avoid discussing them, even to the point of not wanting to admit their existence.  Sadly and infuriatingly, much effort is made specifically to prevent the people most affected by reproduction from knowing anything about it, except that it is a horrible thing to do.  Until one is in a socially sanctioned relationship, of course.  Once some magic words are spoken the horrific act of reproduction becomes not only not repulsive but desirable.  The very idea of creating a new body out of one's own must be terrifying to many people, perhaps moreso in those who are not physically in the position to do it.  Misogyny has been sometimes brushed aside as mere "womb envy".  Anyone who knows anything about animals, mammals in particular, knows that new animals are born.  They form inside their mothers and exit her body in a rush of blood and other fluids to become their own individual beings.  It is as ghastly as any horror movie, especially one with elements of science fiction.  The fact that such stories and films exist is but a testament to the horror we have of human reproduction.  The disgust some people profess to have for nursing is probably the product of both misogyny and hatred of sex, since the breasts have become so linked to sexual pleasure that their natural use seems to be perverse.  Many people cannot separate body parts from sexuality, that is enjoying the act, and are horrified to see any part of the body used in a way that is not for the pleasure of a sexual partner, even though these same people may disdain sex for pleasure.  It is one more modern hypocrisy we have.

Sex itself receives its shares of disgust and rejection.  The very idea of our bodies producing fluids that must be mixed to produce another human, it can only be alchemy.  Something completely unnatural and unbelievable.  Of course, when there is no intention of using that magical power to create another human, it is even worse.  Sex for fun is disdained and vilified all over, as a grotesque, selfish or even abusive activity.  Nursing falls under the same category, since the human breast has become so entwined with sexual signaling and arousal that its biological use is secondary.  We insist on telling children about the dangers of sex, when we can bring ourselves to talk to them at all on the subject, but we refuse to admit the pleasure.  That kind of physical pleasure is not acceptable.  And in fact, what physical pleasure is?

We have heard of the seven deadly sins, and although only two (maybe three) of them have to do with physical sensation, we focus on the body as a source of perdition.  Our appetites will destroy us, not just if we suffer from addiction, but by the mere fact of our desire.  Beauty is denigrated as superficial and without real value; tastes are defined as "sinful" because we enjoy them, normally an insincere marketing term, but still reflecting our cultural anxiety; anything regarding the physical body is automatically suspect and probably immoral.  We are told to control our appetites, not to any useful end for ourselves in most cases, but to frustrate those appetites and intensify them through denial.  When we are truly frustrated, we can be more easily controlled by promises of access and abundance. This is part of the appeal of certain religions, those that promise a reward in the unknown future for self-denial in the present.  In contrast to the rejection of intellectualism, the rejection of the physical is a universal rejection of humanity.  Not every human is capable or willing to develop the intellect beyond the most necessary parameters, but nearly every human has physical appetites.  By labeling them as "bad", we make it almost impossible for people not to be "bad" as well.

But suppose we have a person lacking in intellectual curiosity, asexual, and astoundingly easy to please to boot.  One might think this is a person who cannot be offensive in any way to those who fear or loath the human.  One might be wrong.  Most people have sexual feelings and other desires.  Many people at least try to exercise their mental capabilities.  Every single person has a body.  The body does dirty and disgusting things.  Animal things, perhaps we could say.  This is yet another way we attempt to separate ourselves from other living beings and install ourselves in some different and unique space.  Speech was mentioned before as a uniquely human manner of communication.  Animals may use noises, but also body language and odor.  For the most part, we are not offended by body language in other humans, although we may try to reduce the exuberance some people have for it.  We are, however, offended by bodily fluids and odors.  Now, it must be said that health and hygiene are important things to keep in mind.  The body, as well as its coverings and environment, should be washed regularly.  Again, we do not differ from most animals in this regard, although we have much more sophisticated means of washing.  Still, although we water down our bodies daily and soak our clothes with each wearing, nobody naturally smells like they defecate lavender and Cinnabons.  Perfumes and colognes are used to cover over any possible animal scents, but to the extent that a person without any perfumes may be thought to "smell".  Our laundry detergents and fabric softeners perform the same chore on our clothing, as educational reality show participants discovered in the year 1999.  Yes, there is a long history of using substances to sweeten our physical presence, but nothing can make the human body a bed of roses.  Once more, we may be in danger of going to impossible extremes to remove ourselves from the animal kingdom with a hatred and disdain for the physical.

So, in an odd way, there is no winning when it comes to being human.  Nothing we can do will remove the stink and filth of our own bodies, thus bringing on the wrath of those who believe we should ascend to some higher, less physical plane to be truly respectable beings.  At the same time, when we make headway into more cerebral pursuits, there are any number of people condemning us for retreating into less earthly passions.  For those firmly on one side or the other, all we can say is, as you like.  Then we can be on our merry way.  Unfortunately, there are not a few, mostly driven by fanatical religious beliefs, although not exclusively so, who hold both characteristics of humanity to be somehow inappropriate and undesirable.  For those who would rob us of both our minds and our bodies, there is really nothing to say.  Resorting to body language is the best choice:

Joan Jett speaks for all of us

The Morality In Self-Driving Cars

We are aware that at least of couple of companies are attempting to create a self-driving car for public consumption.  It has been something of a dream for car users to not have to actually drive their vehicle at all times, especially since we are well aware of the dangers of driving when not at peak alertness.  Unfortunately, we cannot all rely on public transportation or friends' generosity, so a self-driving car would save the exhausted or the chemically altered from risking fines and destruction, as well as the guilt of having injured or even killed somebody.  The self-driving car, we are told, has the added benefit of being aware of all other cars on the roads, even those beyond our line of sight, and thus can choose a better alternative when the intended road is too crowded.  GPS and internal maps allow the cars to prepare for turns and the like far before arriving at them, minimizing the dangers of cutting off other cars or missing exits.  A car in distress could alert emergency services or at least a tow truck before breaking down in the middle of the highway.  Nothing but positives!

The trouble comes when we remember that, although cars will mainly be on the road, they will not be the only things on the road.  Animals have a habit of wandering into traffic.  People are also guilty of this.  Objects can roll or blow into the road, creating a dangerous situation, especially when those objects are unexpectedly followed by their owners.  Short of confining traffic to impenetrable tubes and tunnels, there is no way to avoid the decision of what to run into or over.  The self-driving car has to make that decision, unless a valiant driver chooses to override the program and take responsibility herself.

It comes down to a hierarchy of value.  Who is more valuable, the squirrel or the pedestrian?  Should the car avoid the jaywalker even if it means the possibility of injury to the passenger?  If there is no way to avoid a crowd of people in the middle of the street, which ones are the most disposable?  Small animals might be an acceptable casualty, but large animals like deer, bears, and errant cattle not only deserve some respect as living things, but certainly pose a danger of great damage to the car and injury to those in it.  How should the car react when ten deer cross the road, when hitting one could mean disabling the vehicle just as much as going off the road does?

Polls, quizzes and online questionnaires attempt to find reasonable answers to these doubts, but there is no 100% agreement.  It seems we all have personal hierarchies when it comes to assigning value to those we share our traffic spaces with, which really should come as no surprise.  It may be that self-driving cars will ask their owners to program the hierarchy upon acquisition, leaving it unknown if any particular car will drive over a dog or swerve into the other lane, even at the risk of hitting another car.  Our cars will continue to be extensions of ourselves, doing as we would do on our prior orders.

Is this really a higher level of safety than we have today?  Perhaps not.  However, those of us who value individual choice and liberty may have to take it rather than acquiesce to somebody else's pre-programmed auto morality.

Children Are Pawns Of Their Parents

Parents have it tough.  They are expected to raise children that follow the conventions of the society they live in and do so in a socially acceptable way, which may mean far fewer choices when it comes to training and discipline.  There are always a few who disregard those limitations, but they are typically called out on their bad behavior and chastised by those around them.  Their children might even be confiscated by the State.  "Confiscated"?  Like material possessions?  In a way, yes.  Despite the insistence of many that children's lives are inherently valuable and to be respected, when it comes down to it we do not think of children as full people in a great number of cases.  We do not even recognize that we think of them as less, and that the structure of our society makes it necessary.  Children are meant to be the responsibility of their parents, until they are deemed mature enough to take care of themselves.  Due to our social requirements of extensive education, children must spend many years, more than two decades even, preparing to be adults.  While much of their educational preparation comes in the form of academic or practical training, we assume that parents are responsible for emotional upbringing.  They are expected to explain and model the values that society will benefit from.  Children mimic and repeat the moral judgements, the political catchphrases, and the general ethical attitude they receive from their parents, before they have had a chance to weigh the information for themselves, before they are able to think critically.  However, at what point can we say children go from learners to pawns?

It is extremely easy to simply wave off every opinion we do not like which is taught to children and say those parents are using their children as pawns.  The forced-birthers who bring their children to protests at health clinics use them as tools to shame passers-by and women seeking care.  Babies and young children feature in photos with politicians during campaigns.  They endure kisses, hugs, and handshakes.  They go out with t-shirts declaring their support of candidates they cannot vote for.  We can brush aside these actions by children as mere attempts to win their parents' favor.  Children do not have a deep appreciation of the issues, they only repeat what they hear at home.  And yet, is this not what we expect from good parents?  Children may not understand ethical and moral issues at a profound level, but they mimic the models shown to them as they learn about the world and their place in it.  This is how children learn human behavior.

On the other hand, we all learn by participating in activities.  It is true that children do not understand all the ins and outs of an issue, but should they not be given the option of participating?  Should they not be given at least the basics?  We need practice making decisions and defining our own morals to become full adults, and following parental instructions blindly, with no explanations, does not usher children towards adulthood and maturity.  Of course, some children will choose to wear their parents' values on their chests as a gesture of loyalty, or with the thought that it makes them look more grown-up.  However, even being given the choice is a gesture of respect for the child as a person (even a partially-baked person).  This is the problem at the heart of it: There are people who simply do not see children as real people, worthy of respect and autonomy.  They may not even give other adults that evaluation.  While children have little experience and for the most part little talent for critical thought, they should be allowed to form their own opinions.  When parents override them, as they will probably do often, pains ought to be taken for the child to know why.  It is a frustrating proposition.  Not all children, and not at all times, will be open to explanation.  They are maturing, not mature.  Maybe we cannot expect understanding, but we can hope that they will remember our efforts.

Separating Action and Actor

A lot of factors go into considering somebody a good person.  We look at their values, the way they behave towards others, how they make us feel personally.  A "good" person follows a moral code, and contributes society.  Of course, sometimes we have to do some things that are not completely good, but there are always extenuating circumstances.  After all, nobody is perfect.  There can be slip-ups, mistakes, accidental harm, all sorts of not good things that good people do.  But they are still good people, are they not?  They still show us good examples through most of their behavior, and what harm they have done can be excused.  At least, this is what we wish to be true.  Unfortunately, it is probably not.

Let us take an example.  Woody Allen is widely known to have screwed over Mia Farrow in their marriage, leaving her for their adopted daughter.  We can argue that this is not illegal, nor should it be, but it is undeniably creepy behavior.  More troubling are the accusations of molestation by his biological daughter.  Naturally, he denies them, but he has already shown himself to be unconcerned about the attitudes of the society around him towards his sexual activities, so why would we not give more weight to those accusations than his denials?  He is suddenly a "bad" person to the public, assuming there is any truth in the accusations.  He is a degenerate and a criminal, a thoroughly selfish and self-centered person.  He is also a great film-maker.  Being famous, the vast majority of us have no opportunity to snub him at a party, but we could demonstrate our disapproval of his actions by not seeing his films.  Boycotts have long been a way of pressuring businesses to meet with societal standards, so why should we not do something similar in this case?  The sad truth is that it will probably have no effect on him, nor on anybody else except those who earn their living working on his films.  A protest of that kind is not against the content of the film, or the conditions under which it was produced, but against the director(/actor/writer)'s personal life and behavior.  He is already wealthy from his past successes in any case, so boycotts at this point do little to persuade him to change what he does in his private life.  He will only consider himself a misunderstood artist, and a poor, poor victim of a puritanical society.

We can find a different sort of example in Richard Dawkins.  While not an artist, Dawkins does have a public life and platform, and he does benefit from selling his works and charging for appearances.  Many people credit him with being one of the major factors in their leaving organized religion or faith altogether.  He, along with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet, has been the face of what is known as New Atheism, a loud response to religion in the modern world.  For those who doubt or outright do not believe, his sharp criticism and unsugared remarks about faith and the faithful have been encouraging, uplifting, and comforting.  However, he is also human.  Like all of us, he has his failings and weaknesses.  He is dismissive of women and women's experiences when they do not serve the pro-atheist narrative.  He is oddly minimizing of the effects of child abuse.  Still, these are his personal opinions.  He was not speaking for the entire movement of Atheism, or for any other organization (as I recall), so a boycott of his lectures and refusal to buy his books would do little to change his mind, and again, foster a sense of unwarranted persecution.  The situation is most certainly not the same, however, as with a film-maker, painter, or musician.  The works that Dawkins produces are not separate from his personal opinions, they are meant to disseminate them.  An artist might represent an opinion or view in an artful way that can be appreciated for its own sake, but Dawkins' works are his own voice, not a mere representation.  He has been an important voice.  He has made resounding, powerful statements that needed to be heard.  So we hesitate when asked, is the good work of the past enough to outweigh the bad faith (sorry) of the present?

In the end, we each have our own hierarchy of values and moral behaviors.  We put up with things that others will not tolerate based on their own codes.  The limits of our forgiveness are built on shaky ground, constantly threatened and shifted, but always our own.  While it is laudable to be coherent and consistent in our morals, we ought also to keep in mind that we are all human, imperfect, and full of self-justifications.

Conservatives say, Marriage is destroying society!

There is no surprise in the fact that people who do not support women's rights in general do not support equality in a marriage.  What may be surprising is the supposed goal they attach to that institution: Rather than family forming or promoting stable partnerships to care for each other, the purpose of marriage is to spread wealth and resources throughout society.  "Of course," you might think, "the parties in a marriage share their resources with each other, and may even help out each other's friends and families to a degree they otherwise would not."   However, what is meant by that statement is that a wealthy person should marry a poor person, in order to prevent a concentration of wealth in the most financially privileged families.  Their argument is based on the fact that in the middle of the 20th century it was not uncommon for secretaries to marry their bosses, or for nurses to marry doctors.  Therefore, opponents of equal rights argue, it is proven that unequal marriage benefits society.  What they choose to ignore is that there are likely many, many more bosses than secretaries, and there are plenty of men who are disadvantaged economically.  The conditions of marriage imposed by societies of this kind may easily discourage women of wealth from marrying any who are not at at least an equal level to their own.  Who should the poor man marry, if poor women are marrying only wealthy men?  Who should the wealthy woman marry, if the wealthy men are marrying poor, and presumably grateful, women?  We now have a large chunk of the population left out of the marriage market.  We also have relationships that are fundamentally transactional, that is based on material benefits, not on love or any other "virtuous" emotion.  While arranged marriages throughout the world function without the requirement of emotional attachment, at least at first, is this an acceptable way to conduct relationships in a society so steeped in individual fulfillment and romanticism?

Let us first address the romance.  We in the West assume that marriage will lead to a happily ever after style of life.  The two parties will learn to love each other in spite of or even because of their respective quirks, and they will support each other emotionally through thick and thin.  This is part of the traditional wedding vow in English, at least.  The relationship is principally between the husband and wife, even to the exclusion of their parents.  In arranged marriages, on the other hand, the relationship is more social, a cog in the machine of the community.  The couple is put together as an arrangement to benefit both families, not just one of them and not just each other.  The partner is considered for the advantages won through the legal connection of course, but also for the compatible characteristics when compared to the marriageable family member.  The arranged marriage, at least in theory, works because objective observers (not really objective, but anyway) have chosen a couple to form a stable pair, based on the characteristics of each one.  They are probably similar in many ways. They certainly are not from wildly different places in society.  This flies in the face of the inegalitarians' vision.  The arranged marriage, again, in theory, is a sensible transaction for the individuals involved, not the faceless society around them.  While there are many stories - fairy tales, movies, novels - that promote a happy and romantic relationship between people of vastly different social classes, inegalitarians seem to be forgetting one thing: The poor woman always has almost impossible positive qualities.  She is nearly inhuman.  Divinely patient, intelligent, or at least brimming over with common sense, admiration and respect for her betters.  No mere human can compete with that standard, and attempts at a "fairy tale" romance will surely lead only to failure.

In the mind of an inegalitarian, the poorer partner, or the woman in any case, should be grateful to be hitched up.  The shame of singleness is enough to lower the highest standards, or at least it should be.  This means that the poorer partner always has to work harder to maintain the interest of the wealthier partner, who has more incentive to look for something better.  Despite "happily ever after", marriage is an unending competition.  The clash of roles in the partnership of the wealthy woman and poor man ensures that they can never have a satisfying relationship.  As the richer partner, the woman should be more at ease and more able to explore options; however, as the goal of inegalitarians is not to equalize wealth distribution, but to enslave women, this cannot be allowed.  The woman must always be the grateful party.  How to achieve this when she has financial status?  Old laws gave all property that came with the wife to the husband, ensuring that women are in inescapable poverty and continually dependent on men.  Inegalitarians would applaud a return of such laws, no doubt.  Women may at first resist, but with the full load of single shame upon them, they will have little social choice but to marry for appearances, even to the detriment to their persons and liberty.

Like many horrible arguments, this one is based on tradition.  The problem with tradition is that conditions change and old habits become inviable.  What is even sillier with regard to this particular argument is that the tradition referenced was not really traditional.  Much of the social behavior of the mid-20th century, in the United States especially, was an aberration.  Social upheaval because of the recent war that required major shifts in roles and adjustments in self-identification created a very special circumstance in which people from very different backgrounds might meet and decide they had enough in common to forge a lasting relationship.  The key here might be that very idea. Inegalitarians seem to believe that expecting or forcing people to marry outside of their socioeconomic level will foster equality, when it is more likely that the belief in achieving social equality is what allowed these pairings to happen in the first place.  With a solidification of barriers between different social strata, members of each much of less likely to look for similarities and instead focus on the differences.  By removing the hope of upward mobility, we discourage those on top from associating with those on the bottom, because they have no chance of ever being like their betters.

Finally, if marriage serves no grand social experiment, why do people marry?   Our current ideal is the relationship based on love and affection, rather than mere survival strategy.  We have even left behind the pretense of biological reproduction (always an untruth anyway) and allowed homosexuals to legally protect their relationships.  I say protect because of the great quantity of rights that come with a legal marriage in the United States.  Even though we as a society have tried to leave behind the idea of a marriage as a financial transaction, much of the law still treats it that way.  Individuals, on the other hand, prefer to think of their marriages as partnerships between willing members, the more romantic ideal.  We want our spouses to be our friends, to support us and make us happy, while we want to do the same for them.  Most people get along best with those they are similar to, those who they share values with.  People of different backgrounds, be they cultural, religious, or economic, do not share all their values, perhaps not the most important ones in fact.  A marriage based on pure mathematical matching of bank accounts will not consider human values.  If we accept the idea of marriage that is commonly held in our society and our time, we cannot accept inegalitarian marriage. If it is so important to move money around in society, as they insist, it should be done with broader reaching means than a couple hooking up.

Fisk a Stranger's Comment - on Spain

Comment on Slate article about a bullfighter killed in the ring
Jul 11, 2016



Posted this specifically to one person earlier but thought it might help situate this disturbing spectacle and address some of the disparaging comments here about Spanish traditions, in general.
I share the disgust many feel for this tradition, but a few observations to nuance the context: First, bullfighting in Spain is seen not as sport but as art.

Art is a very subjective thing.  Serial killers might see murder as art, do we have to respect that?
 
It is a ritual performance marked by grace, agility, strength and choreography.

I think a “ritual performance” would normally require all participants to “perform”, rather than fight for their literal lives.
 
Dance, not battle, is a better analogy.

Because all those ballerinas get their necks snapped after Swan Lake.
 
The violence is real, but it's read as ritual violence that re-enacts the central fact of life: the struggle to survive.

The struggle of an animal placed in the way of danger against another animal that chooses to find it.
 
The spectacle is seen as a reminder that we live at the expense of nature, that humans need to vanquish nature to survive, whether we admit this (and we usually don't) or not.

Except we don’t need to “vanquish” nature anymore, we need to learn how to live in balance with it before we destroy our own living space.  Our conquest has been too successful.
 
The bull is revered, not reviled, in Spain. So, in the Spanish mind, the bullfight is the most authentic reminder of this central, ugly, but unmistakable fact. Much more honest than, say, the industrial food slaughterhouse.

More honest because we can witness the slaughter?  And laugh and applaud?  I don’t think you really want to encourage that kind of honesty.

Second, Spain is an extremely modernized country; its politics are more progressive than those of France or Italy.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAT????
Ok, maybe this is “progressive” in the sense of local government power.  The Spanish Autonomies make France look like a police state.  We might also consider the same-sex marriage law to be progressive, but what does this have to do with bullfighting?  Do pro-gay policies cancel out animal cruelty?  That doesn’t make “progressive”, that makes zero.
 
It's also a culture to which the west owes a mountain of gratitude. Without the scientific, artistic, and philosophical richness of medieval Spain, the general European renaissance would have been much slower coming.

Because of the Moors and the Jews, who were promptly kicked out and not welcomed in any other European country of the Renaissance, I believe.
 
And as the first modern European nation-state, Spain's empire was rich, powerful, and, for better or worse, the first culture since ancient Rome to promote a truly global economy.

Ehhh, not so much an economy.  Spain promoted exploration and some exploitation, but the profits went to the king to finance his European wars, and the colonies were not especially developed from Spain itself.  They depended on some energetic immigrants who probably were more concerned with their local economy than the home country’s.  England, the Netherlands, even Portugal were more mercantile than Spain.
 
Without Spain, Europe would have been much longer mired in what some call "the dark ages."

And yet, some people say the wealth culled from the colonies kept Spain a feudal country until the 20th century.

Finally, the bullfight's appeal is diminishing sharply in Spain; it's support drawn more from the south and from the working class. I doubt that it will survive another 20 years. Like many, I hope it doesn't.

But you sure are happy to defend the beauty and honesty of it while it’s here.

Immortal Doctor Who

One of the most famous immortals of modern fantasy is The Doctor of "Doctor Who".  Although in the original series he was said to have a limited number of regenerations like the rest of his species, it now appears that he will live forever, or at least until the franchise stops making money.  His immortality or longevity is presented in different ways at different points during the series, being much darker and despairing in the new version than in the old.

Really, very little was made of his long life in the old series, although his rival The Master was presented as a villain for daring to seek immortality after having used up all his regenerations.  Another Time Lord, President Borusa, was also presented in the same light - the bad guy, stealing another life or lives to prolong his own.  While The Doctor, like other Time Lords and other races, lived an enormously long time compared to humans, an everlasting life was something not to be coveted.  His long list of experiences was used to expalin how he was familiar with history and technology far beyond any human glimmer of a dream, how he knew all about different planets and civilizations.  In many cases, he had visited previously, in an episode not made for television.  Still, The Doctor was an explorer and an adventurer whose knowledge was the result of a fully lived life, not merely an unnaturally long one with events coming upon the passive creature.  He even laments, in his fourth incarnation, how little he has done with his life.

The new series, especially in the first two Doctors, shows a bleaker view of his long, now eternal existance.  Both the Nineth and Tenth Doctors are shown sorrowful and angry, considering how their/his existance must inevitably include loss, and great loss at that.  His loneliness is mentioned by several other characters, in passing, but the reaction he shows is one of frustration at being so easy to read.  He is a much angrier Doctor, having seen war and destruction, and having been left as the last of his kind, or so he thinks.  In the past, he had been generous to his enemies, although sometimes ruthless when left with no other choice.  Several times in his first two new incarnations he attempts genocide of races he has found to be irredeemably cruel and destructive.  The Daleks, for example, have been exterminated more than once, only to rise again at another point in the timeline, or through manipulation of it.  He is also a dealer of poetic vigilante justice to the Family of Blood, leaving them supended in agonizing eternal lives, granting their wish in a most Poeish or Dahlian way.  He also despises the accidental immortal Jack Harkness, calling him an abomination, yet oddly refusing to help him find a way to escape this immortality.

The Time Lords themselves are also shown in a somewhat unearthly light.  Of course they are not  Earthlings, but to say ungodly would also be imprecise.  In fact, the Time Lords do seem to be standing in the place of gods, as they are practically all knowing and if not all-powerful, much moreso than any other species in the universe.  The Doctor himself is sometimes roped or coerced into doing tasks for them, since they prefer not to interfere, like a number of human gods we might mention.  This is also similar to human behavior in another classic of modern science fiction, "Star Trek", although in that case it is at least slighly implied that we humans should not interfere because we do not actually know what we are doing.  The Time Lords, in their godlike omniscience, could very well gather the appropriate and relevent information, but choose to merely observe - until they choose to act, that is.  They have fallen into a state of inaction which appears devine.  It is mentioned that they once fough wars, and those experiences are the basis for their attitude, an the same is.  Show inother species, but their long lifespan leads them to a sort of frozen existance in which everything is tradition and nothing changes, forever.

Despite the message of immortality leading to solitude, there may be a positive side to The Doctor's enhanced life.  His companions are taken with him almost immediately, in spite of the fact that their first contact is typically dangerous and even life threatening.  He has an undeniable charisma that charms his companions, even while other people in their lives warn them about the strangeness and danger The Doctor poses.  This attraction is echoed in other immortal characters in literature, although they do not typically offer such an exciting period of friendship.  Without knowing it, we may be attracted to things that have what we do not even admit that we want, and we attach ourseves to the and follow them, looking for the secret, the answer to the question we refuse to ask even in our minds.

So what is the message about immortality in the end?  There are more sinister characters searching for it than good or generous ones, there are more characters who hate it when they have it than "enjoy life to the fullest".  Immortality means there is no pressure and if we take our time, we will do everything we want.  It also means we will be constantly losing those who make our lives great, or even just bearable.  The latest Doctors have not all been overjoyed to have companions tagging along, until they have their first adventure, death-defying included.  Perhaps he/they are starting to tire of always losing that close friend after such a relatively short time.  The immortal enjoying life is always in the company of mortals, those who will soon be gone.  If there is any mesasge, perhpst is "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die."