Are there protest T-shirts for WYD available that protest the anti-annoyance laws without gratuitously attacking Catholics themselves? I don't actually have a beef with the followers - they didn't ask for these regulations as far as I know.
Let's see...this one isn't too bad: "free speech*" with "*$5500 may apply" just under it. This one is interesting: "WYD 08: Is this really what Jesus would do?", but doesn't address my main concern about the whole suppression of freedom of speech thing. Here's one that's apparently pretty popular: "$5500: a small price to pay for annoying Catholics". Okay I guess, but I don't have a beef with the followers.
And there's the dilemma: I want to protest these regulations by being annoying, but I don't actually see the point in annoying Catholics. It won't change their mind. They're not going to suddenly up and say "oh gosh I've been wrong all this time!" based on anything I can do or say. It just, well, annoys them.
The boyfriend is kind of irritated about the whole thing as well. He was considering going in to protest before he learned that the Sydney protests were being organised by people with whom he has strong ideological disagreements. Maybe we should do something together? There's a kiss-in being organised...
Maybe this one is the best option: "WYD has annoyed and inconvenienced me. Pay ME $5500".
Friday, July 04, 2008
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Idiotic World Youth Day regulations
Five and a half thousand dollar fine if you "cause annoyance" during World Youth Day.
You know, I didn't actually feel motivated to be annoying during World Youth Day until I heard about this.
Maybe I should see if I get myself one of those annoying T-shirts that they're talking about?.
You know, I didn't actually feel motivated to be annoying during World Youth Day until I heard about this.
Maybe I should see if I get myself one of those annoying T-shirts that they're talking about?.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Christianist website caught auto-substituting "gay" with "homosexual" - but why?
A number of blogs I read have had a chuckle at the discovery of Christianist "news" site OneNewsNow modifying the content of news articles that they reproduce, replacing the word "gay" wherever it apppears with "homosexual". The process is apparently automated, and was discovered when news reports about an athlete named Tyson Gay appeared on the site. His name was automatically modified in precisely the way you'd expect. My personal favourite response is from Dispatches From the Culture Wars, where a field day is being had over the unintentional double entendres that appeared in the modified article.
Commenters there are also trying to answer the question I have: why? Why would they want to substitute "gay" with "homosexual" in the first place? Several possible answers have been put forward
(1) 'There's nothing "gay" about the gay lifestyle': I've heard this explanation given before, where the earlier meaning of the word "gay" as "happy and carefree" means that the word carries connotations which anti-gay activists don't want attached to the concept of homosexuality. In previous years I've seen attempts to redefine gay people as suffering from something called Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (they're not gay, they're SSAD geddit?) but that seems to have fallen off my radar. Does it still occur?
(2) It's all about the sex: simply put, "homosexual" has the word "sex" in it. The idea apparently is to put "sex" (as opposed to "love" or "relationships") front and centre in people's minds. The focus on sex, the ickier the better, to the exclusion of any other human attribute has previously been noted as an anti-gay strategy. This justification is a little weak by itself, but can tie into...
(3) The Queer Eye for the Straight Guy effect: thanks to inroads made into popular culture, the stereotype of the gay male now has several positive attributes associated with it: we are, apparently, fashionable, stylish and quite useful to have around. Perhaps avoiding the use of the word "gay" in favour of the more clinical "homosexual" neuters this positive effect.
(4) A final possibility which I've seen raised but which I personally find unlikely: the word "gay" is sometimes presumed to refer to male homosexual people only (with "lesbian" being used to refer to female homosexual people). The reason I doubt it is because I don't believe that anti-gay activists know that such a distinction gets made by some people. Or that they would care if they did know.
It's most likely a combination of the above factors. Whatever the specifics, the ultimate purpose is to dehumanise gay people, and to prevent any positive connotations from being ascribed by the language used to describe gay people.
Commenters there are also trying to answer the question I have: why? Why would they want to substitute "gay" with "homosexual" in the first place? Several possible answers have been put forward
(1) 'There's nothing "gay" about the gay lifestyle': I've heard this explanation given before, where the earlier meaning of the word "gay" as "happy and carefree" means that the word carries connotations which anti-gay activists don't want attached to the concept of homosexuality. In previous years I've seen attempts to redefine gay people as suffering from something called Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (they're not gay, they're SSAD geddit?) but that seems to have fallen off my radar. Does it still occur?
(2) It's all about the sex: simply put, "homosexual" has the word "sex" in it. The idea apparently is to put "sex" (as opposed to "love" or "relationships") front and centre in people's minds. The focus on sex, the ickier the better, to the exclusion of any other human attribute has previously been noted as an anti-gay strategy. This justification is a little weak by itself, but can tie into...
(3) The Queer Eye for the Straight Guy effect: thanks to inroads made into popular culture, the stereotype of the gay male now has several positive attributes associated with it: we are, apparently, fashionable, stylish and quite useful to have around. Perhaps avoiding the use of the word "gay" in favour of the more clinical "homosexual" neuters this positive effect.
(4) A final possibility which I've seen raised but which I personally find unlikely: the word "gay" is sometimes presumed to refer to male homosexual people only (with "lesbian" being used to refer to female homosexual people). The reason I doubt it is because I don't believe that anti-gay activists know that such a distinction gets made by some people. Or that they would care if they did know.
It's most likely a combination of the above factors. Whatever the specifics, the ultimate purpose is to dehumanise gay people, and to prevent any positive connotations from being ascribed by the language used to describe gay people.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Some painfully bad news quotes
Hmm, who can give the most stupidly over-the-top quotation in a news article?
From 6 months ago, we have, in the article Websites linked to series of young suicides, the following contenders:
British Labour MP Madeleine Moon worrying that Internet memorial sites for suicide victims are dangerous to our youth:
People: the Internet is part of reality. Deal with it.
From the same article, I do feel a bit that the unnamed police officer who got quoted was being pushed into providing something, anything, that fed the reporter's narrative. This was offered up as a reason to believe that, yes, the mere existence of a memorial to a dead friend on the Internet (as opposed to, say on a wall, at a grave, or any of the gazillion other ways that people's deaths have been memorialised since, well, ever) could be seen as a way in which the Internet encourages youth suicide:
Sheesh.
But it's hard to top Russian state officials, whose "Concept for a State Policy in the Area of Spiritual and Moral Education of the Children of the Russian Federation and Protection of Their Morals" is awe-inspiringly bad. Nevermind the hysterical claim of Stanislav Govorukhin that "Today we have a lost generation of wandering morons whose parents’ moral vision was robbed by perestroika", it's in talking about goth and emo that things just get plain weird:
I suppose an anti-Western cultural backlash was inevitable (thank you so much, George W. Bush), but this kind of xenophobic outrage against "Western" concepts like emo and goth is downright scary.
From 6 months ago, we have, in the article Websites linked to series of young suicides, the following contenders:
British Labour MP Madeleine Moon worrying that Internet memorial sites for suicide victims are dangerous to our youth:
"What is concerning is that you're getting internet bereavement walls. That's not going to help anyone," she said.
"What people need is not to go into a virtual world of the internet to deal with emotional problems... They need to stay very much in this real world and talk to real people."
People: the Internet is part of reality. Deal with it.
From the same article, I do feel a bit that the unnamed police officer who got quoted was being pushed into providing something, anything, that fed the reporter's narrative. This was offered up as a reason to believe that, yes, the mere existence of a memorial to a dead friend on the Internet (as opposed to, say on a wall, at a grave, or any of the gazillion other ways that people's deaths have been memorialised since, well, ever) could be seen as a way in which the Internet encourages youth suicide:
"They may think it's cool to have a memorial website," an officer told The Times.
"It may even be a way of achieving prestige among their peer group."
Sheesh.
But it's hard to top Russian state officials, whose "Concept for a State Policy in the Area of Spiritual and Moral Education of the Children of the Russian Federation and Protection of Their Morals" is awe-inspiringly bad. Nevermind the hysterical claim of Stanislav Govorukhin that "Today we have a lost generation of wandering morons whose parents’ moral vision was robbed by perestroika", it's in talking about goth and emo that things just get plain weird:
The drafters of the concept took a particular negative stance in regard to the Goth and emo youth subcultures, which are characterized by black clothing, piercings and a depressed outlook on reality. They authors compared the danger those subcultures hold for society to the dangers of skinheads, soccer hooligans, National Bolsheviks and even anti-fascists. Emo youths, according to the concept, “are subject to suicidal tendencies” and Goth children cultivate bisexuality. “The cost of the sexual services of an underage boy prostitute with Goth attributes is lower than for students in military schools but higher than for usual gay prostitutes,” the authors say, demonstrating their knowledge of life.
I suppose an anti-Western cultural backlash was inevitable (thank you so much, George W. Bush), but this kind of xenophobic outrage against "Western" concepts like emo and goth is downright scary.
More thoughts on the "emo" and "social networking" youth moral panic
Another tragic teen suicide that's vaguely related to emo and the Internet, another round of reporters writing bad articles that will actively contribute to the problem prompting all their hand-wringing.
The teenager this time is Sam Leeson. He was a thirteen year old who hanged himself. The Daily Mail reports that he was an "emo teen" who got bullied for it, and proceeds to list Blink-182 and Good Charlotte as examples of emo bands that he liked. They have the decency to list the Foo Fighters and Slipknot as "alternative" rather than "emo" at least, so it's nice to know they're trying to classify emo music accurately, even if they do fail. Blink-182, emo? People will be trying to say that Nirvana counts as emo music at this rate...
There's been plenty of pushback against bad reporting on emo in the media, with sites like Alterophobia springing up, and protests happening, of all things. The Daily Mail article is thus somewhat muted compared to its earlier dire warnings about the "emo suicide cult", as others have noted. It would be nice to think that this easing off on blaming emo would translate into thoughtful reporting, of a type that doesn't involve seeking a convenient scapegoat to account for deep-seated social problems being expressed in the attitude of teens towards each other and themselves, but that wouldn't sell papers now, would it? All attention is turned instead towards the other scapegoat that inevitably appears in these stories: the Internet, and the youth province of social networking sites.
Sam Leeson had an account on Bebo. From news.com.au: Bebo blamed for 13-year-old boy's death. Sam's mother "has blamed Bebo, a teenage social network similar to MySpace, for her son's death, and demanded a crackdown on websites that allow cyberbullies to target other users."
Unhelpfully, people in the comments section of this article at Mashable find it bemusing that someone could kill themselves just over cyberbullying, flat out saying that it shows Sam had something seriously wrong with him that the parents should have noticed...somehow. One goes so far as to say that "The parents should be charged with murder for allowing this clearly sick child to get on the computer for chatting at all!"
Some of this attitude is somewhat understandable given that certain facts did not appear in the media reporting. One such fact is the existence of offline bullying of Sam Leeson: claims that Sam "had been bullied by Severn Vale pupils particularly on the bus", that students from another school "apparently threatened him to kill himself, or they would kill him". The bullying was both offline and online. Why is it only the online bullying whose existence gets acknowledged?
Well...from Digital Journal:"Sam’s parents didn’t realize that he suffered from bullying until they checked his Bebo page after his death". Think about this. His parents didn't know about ANY bullying, both offline and online, until they found online evidence of it.
The Internet has changed things, but not in the way that people getting all hysterical about the "new menace" of cyberbullying claim. All that's happened is that the bullying which has always been there is now much more readily visible to the people who ought to be concerned with it. "Cyber-bullying" is not a new form of bullying. It is not threatening in some unspecified way that "real" bullying is not. It is just the extension of it into an online environment. Nothing more, nothing less.
The problem, then, is not Evil Emo Music[tm], or Evil Internet[tm]. The problem is what it has always been: the existence of bullying. What's changed is not its prevalence, but its visiblity. This could be seen as an opportunity, should people concerned with the issue be willing to take it. It is such a shame that they are proving unwilling or unable to do so.
The teenager this time is Sam Leeson. He was a thirteen year old who hanged himself. The Daily Mail reports that he was an "emo teen" who got bullied for it, and proceeds to list Blink-182 and Good Charlotte as examples of emo bands that he liked. They have the decency to list the Foo Fighters and Slipknot as "alternative" rather than "emo" at least, so it's nice to know they're trying to classify emo music accurately, even if they do fail. Blink-182, emo? People will be trying to say that Nirvana counts as emo music at this rate...
There's been plenty of pushback against bad reporting on emo in the media, with sites like Alterophobia springing up, and protests happening, of all things. The Daily Mail article is thus somewhat muted compared to its earlier dire warnings about the "emo suicide cult", as others have noted. It would be nice to think that this easing off on blaming emo would translate into thoughtful reporting, of a type that doesn't involve seeking a convenient scapegoat to account for deep-seated social problems being expressed in the attitude of teens towards each other and themselves, but that wouldn't sell papers now, would it? All attention is turned instead towards the other scapegoat that inevitably appears in these stories: the Internet, and the youth province of social networking sites.
Sam Leeson had an account on Bebo. From news.com.au: Bebo blamed for 13-year-old boy's death. Sam's mother "has blamed Bebo, a teenage social network similar to MySpace, for her son's death, and demanded a crackdown on websites that allow cyberbullies to target other users."
Unhelpfully, people in the comments section of this article at Mashable find it bemusing that someone could kill themselves just over cyberbullying, flat out saying that it shows Sam had something seriously wrong with him that the parents should have noticed...somehow. One goes so far as to say that "The parents should be charged with murder for allowing this clearly sick child to get on the computer for chatting at all!"
Some of this attitude is somewhat understandable given that certain facts did not appear in the media reporting. One such fact is the existence of offline bullying of Sam Leeson: claims that Sam "had been bullied by Severn Vale pupils particularly on the bus", that students from another school "apparently threatened him to kill himself, or they would kill him". The bullying was both offline and online. Why is it only the online bullying whose existence gets acknowledged?
Well...from Digital Journal:"Sam’s parents didn’t realize that he suffered from bullying until they checked his Bebo page after his death". Think about this. His parents didn't know about ANY bullying, both offline and online, until they found online evidence of it.
The Internet has changed things, but not in the way that people getting all hysterical about the "new menace" of cyberbullying claim. All that's happened is that the bullying which has always been there is now much more readily visible to the people who ought to be concerned with it. "Cyber-bullying" is not a new form of bullying. It is not threatening in some unspecified way that "real" bullying is not. It is just the extension of it into an online environment. Nothing more, nothing less.
The problem, then, is not Evil Emo Music[tm], or Evil Internet[tm]. The problem is what it has always been: the existence of bullying. What's changed is not its prevalence, but its visiblity. This could be seen as an opportunity, should people concerned with the issue be willing to take it. It is such a shame that they are proving unwilling or unable to do so.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Fighting Windows
Dear God but Windows Vista is a steaming pile of crap.
Our Internet access is finally on at home, so naturally I set about decking out the computer with all the essentials I've come to expect (well, except for a Linux OS, but Nick's stood firm in the face of my nagging about it). Firefox downloaded no problem at all, and then I tried to install Flash...
Automatic install: fail. Okay, switch to manual. Download, run, get told I need to quit Firefox before it can run. Quit Firefox, run installer, try to run Firefox. The ever-helpful Windows system tells me "there is a problem with the program", and it doesn't load. Windows helpfully tells me that it will find out what's wrong for me "if possible". Naturally, enough, it doesn't. No "sorry, couldn't help" either, it just does nothing. Firefox, she is broken.
I switch to the omnipresent Internet Explorer browser to find the problem. Don't get me wrong, the latest version of IE is much better than the earlier ones, but still, I want my Firefox extensions. Anyway, I find the fix. It's fiddly, and wouldn't be necessary if Windows Vista didn't have a seriously brained attitude to security.
For anyone else who faces this here is the link I used. I had to uninstall Firefox (completely uninstall, including user data and settings), disable User Account Control (UAC), re-install Firefox, and then install Flash (which now worked fine as an automatic install).
Now, I'm wondering: UAC is that godawful part of Vista that insists on asking "do you want to allow this operation?" whenever you install a program, uninstall a program, run an executable from any disk at all for crying out loud, and generally get in the way. I swear, some MS would-be software engineer heard someone say "security tends to come with a trade-off in usability" and heard "the more usability you lose, the better your security". What, besides, nag the user incessantly and unnecessarily, does this thing actually do? The help file says it's supposed to prevent malware from being installed by "ensuring that the program being run is the actual program you want to run", but, honestly, that seems an awful lot of trouble for a very weak form of protection. It's one that's totally dependent on the user not just clicking through regardless, I'll note.
So, do I actually need UAC activated in Windows Vista? I'm thinking no.
Our Internet access is finally on at home, so naturally I set about decking out the computer with all the essentials I've come to expect (well, except for a Linux OS, but Nick's stood firm in the face of my nagging about it). Firefox downloaded no problem at all, and then I tried to install Flash...
Automatic install: fail. Okay, switch to manual. Download, run, get told I need to quit Firefox before it can run. Quit Firefox, run installer, try to run Firefox. The ever-helpful Windows system tells me "there is a problem with the program", and it doesn't load. Windows helpfully tells me that it will find out what's wrong for me "if possible". Naturally, enough, it doesn't. No "sorry, couldn't help" either, it just does nothing. Firefox, she is broken.
I switch to the omnipresent Internet Explorer browser to find the problem. Don't get me wrong, the latest version of IE is much better than the earlier ones, but still, I want my Firefox extensions. Anyway, I find the fix. It's fiddly, and wouldn't be necessary if Windows Vista didn't have a seriously brained attitude to security.
For anyone else who faces this here is the link I used. I had to uninstall Firefox (completely uninstall, including user data and settings), disable User Account Control (UAC), re-install Firefox, and then install Flash (which now worked fine as an automatic install).
Now, I'm wondering: UAC is that godawful part of Vista that insists on asking "do you want to allow this operation?" whenever you install a program, uninstall a program, run an executable from any disk at all for crying out loud, and generally get in the way. I swear, some MS would-be software engineer heard someone say "security tends to come with a trade-off in usability" and heard "the more usability you lose, the better your security". What, besides, nag the user incessantly and unnecessarily, does this thing actually do? The help file says it's supposed to prevent malware from being installed by "ensuring that the program being run is the actual program you want to run", but, honestly, that seems an awful lot of trouble for a very weak form of protection. It's one that's totally dependent on the user not just clicking through regardless, I'll note.
So, do I actually need UAC activated in Windows Vista? I'm thinking no.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
"We don't want to make Obama look racist by endorsing him"
So Google News' front page randomly decides to serve me up an article from allAfrica.com. The title is Nigeria: Senate Turns Down Motion of Commendation to Obama.
The motion was dismissed before it could be voted upon, on the basis that Hillary Clinton has not as yet conceded (although she has now stated that she will do so on Saturday).There's also this fascinating explanation for why the Nigerian Senate shouldn't rush to Obama's support:
SRSLY?
The motion was dismissed before it could be voted upon, on the basis that Hillary Clinton has not as yet conceded (although she has now stated that she will do so on Saturday).There's also this fascinating explanation for why the Nigerian Senate shouldn't rush to Obama's support:
Bringing his own counsel to bear, Senator Aminu said, "It's good for Obama for one thing but I don't like how efforts are being made to portray him as a racist. It wouldn't serve him right for the largest Senate in black Africa to portray him in such light.
SRSLY?
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
The Democratic Primaries are over
It says something about the whole process that I have not read a single report of who actually won the last two Primary contests held today. Instead the news has been replete with reporting that Barack Obama has finally gained the majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates that he needed to win. He now appears to have a lock on the nomination.
Hillary Clinton has not yet conceded, and used tonight to deliver a speech in which she once again raised the hotly disputed claim that she won the popular vote, asserting that more people have voted for her than for any Democratic candidate for the nomination in history. She then asked people to go to her website and make suggestions about where she ought to go from here. News reports had earlier quoted her as saying that she is open to the possibility of being Obama's VP.
All three candidates gave speeches tonight, although at the time of writing the full versions have not yet shown up on Youtube. I admit my daily blog diet has an overabundance of strong Obama supporters in it, but this is the short summary of their impressions of each speech:
McCain's: Yawn-worthy
Clinton's: Tacky and graceless
Obama's: HOLY SHIT THIS GUY IS GOOD!!
In any case, the first stage of the interminable process of replacing George W Bush at is nearly over. Here is an electoral map of where things currently stand for the actual Presidential election itself.
Apropos of nothing in particular, something I've been wondering for a while now: why does DailyKos have the nickname "Great Orange Satan"?
Hillary Clinton has not yet conceded, and used tonight to deliver a speech in which she once again raised the hotly disputed claim that she won the popular vote, asserting that more people have voted for her than for any Democratic candidate for the nomination in history. She then asked people to go to her website and make suggestions about where she ought to go from here. News reports had earlier quoted her as saying that she is open to the possibility of being Obama's VP.
All three candidates gave speeches tonight, although at the time of writing the full versions have not yet shown up on Youtube. I admit my daily blog diet has an overabundance of strong Obama supporters in it, but this is the short summary of their impressions of each speech:
McCain's: Yawn-worthy
Clinton's: Tacky and graceless
Obama's: HOLY SHIT THIS GUY IS GOOD!!
In any case, the first stage of the interminable process of replacing George W Bush at is nearly over. Here is an electoral map of where things currently stand for the actual Presidential election itself.
Apropos of nothing in particular, something I've been wondering for a while now: why does DailyKos have the nickname "Great Orange Satan"?
Sunday, June 01, 2008
The people's choice?
What the Daily Show has for some time been calling the Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March to the White House proceeds apace.
Today was a meeting to decide the fate of the delegates in Michigan and Florida. Look it up if you want to find the exact details, I'm getting thoroughly sick of the whole thing. Bottom line: the two states will have delegates seated, but the number of delegates will be cut by 50% for each. Some Michigan delegates will also be apportioned to Obama, although Hillary still gets the majority of them.
To summarise the objections from the Clinton camp to Obama's nomination that still exist, as well as some brand new ones:
1) Hillary Clinton is leading in the popular vote
2) Hillary Clinton beats in John McCain in the general, while Obama loses
3) A black, racist liberal elitist like Obama cannot possibly win the general under any circumstances.
4) Awarding any Michigan delegates to Obama at all is unfair and undemocratic because he chose to remove his name from the ballot, therefore receiving no delegates is entirely his own fault.
Argh.
For now, I only want to deal with (1), and mainly because what I'm about to say is I think one of those unpopular things that needs to be said: the popular vote in these Democratic Primaries is not a valid metric of what the majority of people want. You can think Michigan and Florida for that.
Because Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, people who wanted to vote for him were not able to do so. I have also personally communicated with people who chose not to vote at all in either the Florida or Michigan Primaries because they had been told in advance that their votes would not count. Without these two groups voting, the existing vote tallies in those two states do not accurately reflect the will of the people in those two states. Therefore, including them in the overall popular vote tally, as Hillary Clinton does, is wrong. The fix? There isn't one: an accurate "popular vote" tally that includes all 50 states and sundry other competitions (Puerto Rico, Guam, Democrats Abroad, etc.) is no longer possible.
Actually it'd be enough to discredit the "popular vote tally" as a valid metric just by pointing out the absurdity of including a state in which 0% of all votes were awarded to Obama, but (a) I wanted to be thorough, and (b) as stated above, many Clinton supporters are now saying that it's Obama's own fault that he received no votes in Michigan.
Today was a meeting to decide the fate of the delegates in Michigan and Florida. Look it up if you want to find the exact details, I'm getting thoroughly sick of the whole thing. Bottom line: the two states will have delegates seated, but the number of delegates will be cut by 50% for each. Some Michigan delegates will also be apportioned to Obama, although Hillary still gets the majority of them.
To summarise the objections from the Clinton camp to Obama's nomination that still exist, as well as some brand new ones:
1) Hillary Clinton is leading in the popular vote
2) Hillary Clinton beats in John McCain in the general, while Obama loses
3) A black, racist liberal elitist like Obama cannot possibly win the general under any circumstances.
4) Awarding any Michigan delegates to Obama at all is unfair and undemocratic because he chose to remove his name from the ballot, therefore receiving no delegates is entirely his own fault.
Argh.
For now, I only want to deal with (1), and mainly because what I'm about to say is I think one of those unpopular things that needs to be said: the popular vote in these Democratic Primaries is not a valid metric of what the majority of people want. You can think Michigan and Florida for that.
Because Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan, people who wanted to vote for him were not able to do so. I have also personally communicated with people who chose not to vote at all in either the Florida or Michigan Primaries because they had been told in advance that their votes would not count. Without these two groups voting, the existing vote tallies in those two states do not accurately reflect the will of the people in those two states. Therefore, including them in the overall popular vote tally, as Hillary Clinton does, is wrong. The fix? There isn't one: an accurate "popular vote" tally that includes all 50 states and sundry other competitions (Puerto Rico, Guam, Democrats Abroad, etc.) is no longer possible.
Actually it'd be enough to discredit the "popular vote tally" as a valid metric just by pointing out the absurdity of including a state in which 0% of all votes were awarded to Obama, but (a) I wanted to be thorough, and (b) as stated above, many Clinton supporters are now saying that it's Obama's own fault that he received no votes in Michigan.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Bill Henson, "agenda-setting", and the strange malleability of politics
For all the talk of new media changing the media structure, blogs still tend to be more reactive than proactive. It's still the mainstream media and political leaders that set the public agenda of what's discussed, on blogs as much as anywhere else.
I haven't really felt inclined to discuss the Bill Henson situation because I feel like it's an issue that's been dragged kicking and screaming onto the public agenda. I did see some of Henson's work, photos of adolescents' bodies, when doing cultural studies at uni last year. I think it says something about the hysteria around the issue that I honestly cannot remember whether the adolescents in the images that I saw were completely nude or not. Either there was no full nudity, or the context was such that the question of exactly how much clothing was not being worn simply had no reason to stick in my mind.
The only real reason I'm commenting now is because Malcolm Turnbull has recently voiced his support of Henson and artistic freedom, condeming the raids that were done on the art gallery. Meanwhile, the previously linked news article says that the Prime Minister is standing by his initial criticism of the gallery display.
Just to re-iterate: it's the Labor Prime Minister that's currently advocating censorship on the grounds of sexual immorality, and it's the Liberal front-bencher currently defending freedom of expression in the face of that censorship. Weird.
I haven't really felt inclined to discuss the Bill Henson situation because I feel like it's an issue that's been dragged kicking and screaming onto the public agenda. I did see some of Henson's work, photos of adolescents' bodies, when doing cultural studies at uni last year. I think it says something about the hysteria around the issue that I honestly cannot remember whether the adolescents in the images that I saw were completely nude or not. Either there was no full nudity, or the context was such that the question of exactly how much clothing was not being worn simply had no reason to stick in my mind.
The only real reason I'm commenting now is because Malcolm Turnbull has recently voiced his support of Henson and artistic freedom, condeming the raids that were done on the art gallery. Meanwhile, the previously linked news article says that the Prime Minister is standing by his initial criticism of the gallery display.
Just to re-iterate: it's the Labor Prime Minister that's currently advocating censorship on the grounds of sexual immorality, and it's the Liberal front-bencher currently defending freedom of expression in the face of that censorship. Weird.
Friday, May 09, 2008
The so-called "emo suicide" in the UK - some more detail
Why is it that I find myself blogging most when I have uni assessments due?
The UK tabloid media have gone all-out on Hannah Bond's suicide. The Sun: Suicide of Hannah, the secret "emo". The Telegraph: Popular schoolgirl dies in 'emo sucide cult'. Even the more upmarket Times is in on the act: Girl, 13, hanged herself after becoming obsessed with 'emo'. I think it's only that last article which points out that the suicide actually happened in September last year. I wonder why it's suddenly news now? Was the inquest into her death only just now completed?
Hannah's profile is no longer on Bebo. Someone else has put up a memorial page using her former username: http://www.bebo.com/LivingDisaster. Looks like the 4chan people have decided to have some fun in the comments section recently. There are other memorial sites there, such as http://www.bebo.com/RIPhannahxXx. Most recent commenters, those who were genuine friends of Hannah and aren't just there for the lulz, are really pissed at the recent media coverage. Unsurprisingly.
In spite of the ludicrous claims of the media that members of the so-called emo "cult" spend their time "talking about death and the glamorisation of hanging and speaking about “the black parade” - a place where “emos” believe they go after they die", none of that appears anywhere in any of the comments left by any of Hannah's friends. Unsurprising, since the whole idea of it is complete and utter crap. The phrase "black parade" does appear in the comments of the 4chan people who are mocking the death, though. Over and over again. So I expect the mainstream media to do what it does every time it discusses emo, and utterly fail to make a distinction between the genuine and the mocking commentary on emo. I fully expect to see "in-depth investigations" from the mainstream press, which will say stupidity such as "we investigated Hannah's bebo profile and were shocked at the number of times the 'black parade' was mentioned and glorified".
Looks like the emo kids are going to be the targets of a full-blown moral panic yet again. Pity.
The UK tabloid media have gone all-out on Hannah Bond's suicide. The Sun: Suicide of Hannah, the secret "emo". The Telegraph: Popular schoolgirl dies in 'emo sucide cult'. Even the more upmarket Times is in on the act: Girl, 13, hanged herself after becoming obsessed with 'emo'. I think it's only that last article which points out that the suicide actually happened in September last year. I wonder why it's suddenly news now? Was the inquest into her death only just now completed?
Hannah's profile is no longer on Bebo. Someone else has put up a memorial page using her former username: http://www.bebo.com/LivingDisaster. Looks like the 4chan people have decided to have some fun in the comments section recently. There are other memorial sites there, such as http://www.bebo.com/RIPhannahxXx. Most recent commenters, those who were genuine friends of Hannah and aren't just there for the lulz, are really pissed at the recent media coverage. Unsurprisingly.
In spite of the ludicrous claims of the media that members of the so-called emo "cult" spend their time "talking about death and the glamorisation of hanging and speaking about “the black parade” - a place where “emos” believe they go after they die", none of that appears anywhere in any of the comments left by any of Hannah's friends. Unsurprising, since the whole idea of it is complete and utter crap. The phrase "black parade" does appear in the comments of the 4chan people who are mocking the death, though. Over and over again. So I expect the mainstream media to do what it does every time it discusses emo, and utterly fail to make a distinction between the genuine and the mocking commentary on emo. I fully expect to see "in-depth investigations" from the mainstream press, which will say stupidity such as "we investigated Hannah's bebo profile and were shocked at the number of times the 'black parade' was mentioned and glorified".
Looks like the emo kids are going to be the targets of a full-blown moral panic yet again. Pity.
Hillary Clinton should not drop out....yet
An editorial from Motherjones is getting some well-deserved linkage around a lot of blogs. The most important bit is where it highlights what Clinton's three options are now, and the ramifications of them:
I find myself thinking that option three is indeed the best one, politically speaking. So, I suspect, would most Democratic powerbrokers. Should Obama be the nominee, the realpolitik of it is that he most likely cannot within the general election without the support of people who are currently supporting Hillary Clinton. The terms of Hillary Clinton's exit would have to be such that there is no perception of being unfairly forced out, and that there is a call for Democratic supporters of Hillary to be Democrat supporters first and Hillary supporters second. Ideally such a call would come from Hillary Clinton herself.
The first, not being forced out, requires all remaining primaries to be held. Yes, it's tough, but as someone else once told me, the best way for Obama to win the primaries is to, simply, win the primaries. There must be no doubt who came first overall.
The second, the call for unity, reminds me of just how ugly and dirty a game politics can be. How would it go? The Democratic powerbrokers would be having a little conversation with Hillary, saying something like "you can stay in, frankly we don't think you're going to win, but we're not going to subject you to the humiliation of a lockout. We'll even throw in a nice little earner for you later down the track: how does Senate Majority Leader sound? In return for us being so nice and not chucking you out on your ear, you stop playing attack politics on Obama and start saying good things about him every chance you get. You'll endorse him when he wins, right? Make sure your supporters will back him even though he's not you? Good. Then you can stay in, and keep telling people you're in it to win it, although of course we all know different (*evil chuckles*)."
That last bit was gratuitous, but I do think politics can get that nasty. I'm under no illusions that Barack Obama will magically stop things being nasty, but of course I don't think it's down to him to stop it. It's down to us.
First, keep fighting like nothing has changed. When their candidate is challenged, Clinton supporters respond with huge monetary shows of support. And when their careers are challenged, the Clintons themselves kick it into another gear. Hillary Clinton can double down on the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky (where she leads by large margins), ratchet up the calls to seat Michigan and Florida, make a zillion phone calls to superdelegates every day, and hope that Obama gets caught in another Reverend Wright-esque sandstorm. (It wouldn't hurt to drop the gas tax pander.) Rumors persist about one last piece of truly nuclear opposition research the Clinton campaign has held back about Obama. It could release some such thing; the only danger is that if Clinton does not win the nomination, the Democratic nominee may be fatally wounded. But wounding the nominee is obviously not a concern if the Clinton campaign chooses this option, anyway.
Second, she can drop out immediately. Despite the calls for this that are certain to ring through Obama-friendly parts of the blogosphere today, this may not be the best option for Obama. If Clinton drops out this week, Obama may lose the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky to someone who is not on the ballot.
Third, lay the groundwork for a graceful exit in a few weeks. Assuming that Clinton sees the end of the road on the horizon, this choice has several advantages over option number two. First, the Clintons have donated a lot of their own money to the campaign; staying in and continuing to raise funds allows them to retire some of that debt. Second, the last two weeks of the campaign can take a conciliatory tone, attempting to convince Democratic voters who have cast their lot with Clinton that Obama ain't so bad after all. This would go a long way in rehabilitating Bill and Hillary Clinton's reputations within the Democratic Party, and position Hillary for a vice presidential selection, should she be interested. If she hopes to be a future Senate Majority Leader or a candidate in 2012, this route may be the necessary one.
I find myself thinking that option three is indeed the best one, politically speaking. So, I suspect, would most Democratic powerbrokers. Should Obama be the nominee, the realpolitik of it is that he most likely cannot within the general election without the support of people who are currently supporting Hillary Clinton. The terms of Hillary Clinton's exit would have to be such that there is no perception of being unfairly forced out, and that there is a call for Democratic supporters of Hillary to be Democrat supporters first and Hillary supporters second. Ideally such a call would come from Hillary Clinton herself.
The first, not being forced out, requires all remaining primaries to be held. Yes, it's tough, but as someone else once told me, the best way for Obama to win the primaries is to, simply, win the primaries. There must be no doubt who came first overall.
The second, the call for unity, reminds me of just how ugly and dirty a game politics can be. How would it go? The Democratic powerbrokers would be having a little conversation with Hillary, saying something like "you can stay in, frankly we don't think you're going to win, but we're not going to subject you to the humiliation of a lockout. We'll even throw in a nice little earner for you later down the track: how does Senate Majority Leader sound? In return for us being so nice and not chucking you out on your ear, you stop playing attack politics on Obama and start saying good things about him every chance you get. You'll endorse him when he wins, right? Make sure your supporters will back him even though he's not you? Good. Then you can stay in, and keep telling people you're in it to win it, although of course we all know different (*evil chuckles*)."
That last bit was gratuitous, but I do think politics can get that nasty. I'm under no illusions that Barack Obama will magically stop things being nasty, but of course I don't think it's down to him to stop it. It's down to us.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
UK's Daily Mail going for the anti-emo moral panic again
I was wondering why a google search for "emo initiation" was even being made, let alone having the searcher get refered to an entry on my blog. I guess I shouldn't be suprised by the fact that it's the Daily Mail whipping up hysteria about emo and Britain's threatened youth[tm] again.
And how: Girl, 13, hangs herself after becoming obsessed with Emo 'suicide cult' rock band is the headline. My Chemical Romance is given as the prime example of these so-called "suicide cult" bands. I admit to being pleased that, as of the time of writing, every single one of the 41 comments on the article all say basically "you can't blame My Chemical Romance for this!!!"
More disturbing - disturbing because it shows just how crap the Daily Mail's coverage is, that is - is the claim of the existence of an initiation rite into emo subculture that requires a person to cut themselves before they can join. There is simply no such thing. "Emo" is a style of music, and, more recently, a kind of fashion. That's ALL it is. Anybody can "join", since there are no membership requirements to like music and dress in a certain way.
Yes, I'm aware that the poor girl who killed herself told her father that she cut herself as part of such an initiation. Either someone lied to her that such a thing exists, or she lied to her father about the real reason she cut herself. I suspect the latter: from personal experience, I know that the self-hate associated with depression and suicidal tendencies make it almost impossible to explain what you're going through, and why you take actions that seem stupid and self-destructive, in a way that you believe another person would ever be able to understand. I find it entirely plausible that Hannah simply couldn't explain why she did what she did, and came up with that explanation simply as a way of providing an explanation for something that she couldn't actually explain.
My adolescence was spent in what could be considered an "alternative subculture" (grunge, to be exact), and I wish to high heaven that people would stop blaming subcultures for "causing" the problems that their children face once they hit adolescence and start trying not to be children any more. Please, PLEASE understand this: the subcultural identification is not responsible for the problems, the problems are responsible for the subcultural identification.
The music helps people cope with depression, suicidal feelings, the realisation that nobody else can ever know what it is you feel and what you think, not completely, or perhaps not at all. The identification with people of similar tastes help you realise that others can at least partially understand you in a way that adults - who've already gone through all this - cannot. But the process is not perfect, and the fact that it fails sometimes, as it failed in Hannah's case, is no reason to deny that help to the youth that need it.
Cracking down on "emo" tendencies will oppress for no reason those who identify with the subculture. Those who aren't drawn to it for emotional stability will be forced to wear the stigma of falsely being considered emotionally unstable. Those who are drawn to the music and the style looking for emotional stability will only become more emotionally unstable if that outlet is denied to them. It will makes things worse, not better.
*sigh* I wish parents would try to be a little more understanding of their children, especially when they're entering the phase of not being children anymore.
And how: Girl, 13, hangs herself after becoming obsessed with Emo 'suicide cult' rock band is the headline. My Chemical Romance is given as the prime example of these so-called "suicide cult" bands. I admit to being pleased that, as of the time of writing, every single one of the 41 comments on the article all say basically "you can't blame My Chemical Romance for this!!!"
More disturbing - disturbing because it shows just how crap the Daily Mail's coverage is, that is - is the claim of the existence of an initiation rite into emo subculture that requires a person to cut themselves before they can join. There is simply no such thing. "Emo" is a style of music, and, more recently, a kind of fashion. That's ALL it is. Anybody can "join", since there are no membership requirements to like music and dress in a certain way.
Yes, I'm aware that the poor girl who killed herself told her father that she cut herself as part of such an initiation. Either someone lied to her that such a thing exists, or she lied to her father about the real reason she cut herself. I suspect the latter: from personal experience, I know that the self-hate associated with depression and suicidal tendencies make it almost impossible to explain what you're going through, and why you take actions that seem stupid and self-destructive, in a way that you believe another person would ever be able to understand. I find it entirely plausible that Hannah simply couldn't explain why she did what she did, and came up with that explanation simply as a way of providing an explanation for something that she couldn't actually explain.
My adolescence was spent in what could be considered an "alternative subculture" (grunge, to be exact), and I wish to high heaven that people would stop blaming subcultures for "causing" the problems that their children face once they hit adolescence and start trying not to be children any more. Please, PLEASE understand this: the subcultural identification is not responsible for the problems, the problems are responsible for the subcultural identification.
The music helps people cope with depression, suicidal feelings, the realisation that nobody else can ever know what it is you feel and what you think, not completely, or perhaps not at all. The identification with people of similar tastes help you realise that others can at least partially understand you in a way that adults - who've already gone through all this - cannot. But the process is not perfect, and the fact that it fails sometimes, as it failed in Hannah's case, is no reason to deny that help to the youth that need it.
Cracking down on "emo" tendencies will oppress for no reason those who identify with the subculture. Those who aren't drawn to it for emotional stability will be forced to wear the stigma of falsely being considered emotionally unstable. Those who are drawn to the music and the style looking for emotional stability will only become more emotionally unstable if that outlet is denied to them. It will makes things worse, not better.
*sigh* I wish parents would try to be a little more understanding of their children, especially when they're entering the phase of not being children anymore.
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Maybe the Democratic Party ought to split in two....
This is one of my more crackheaded ideas I think, but there's a certain seductive logic to it....
With the Republican Party so discredited in the electorate, and with the reins of power within the Republican Party so tightly held by the far right, is it possible, as I've seen suggested, that the Republican Party is actually dying? Will this be the final election in which they compete as a serious contender?
If the Republican Party is dying, the Democratic Party would be poised to become the only major political party in existence. I instinctively distrust one party rule, no matter which party. I assume that most voters in democratic societies feel much the same way, and would look for a way to redress the balance. A new political party would eventually spring up - perhaps forming when, say, a large and dissatisfied bloc within the existing single party tears away and strikes out on their own.
Which brings me to the rift in the Democratic Party between supporters of Obama and supporters of Clinton. And the crackheaded idea that, if all the above is going to happen eventually, why wait? Divide the party between the two candidates now, circumventing the problem of trying to get the two sides to line up behind one candidate, and get on with it.
The problem of course is that the Republican party is not completely discredited in the eyes of the vast majority of the American voting public. Not yet, anyway. And fielding both Obama and Clinton under separate party banners could, in the winner takes all system of the US Presidential election, very easily hand the presidency to McCain by default.
And yet....I have yet to see a poll which offers people a choice between three preferred candidates rather than two. I wonder if such a poll would paint a slightly different picture to the two-person preferred question that every pollster has been asking. Plus with optional voting, turnout matters, and in the 2008 primaries the Democrats have been absolutely killing the Republicans in turnout, even long before McCain finally clinched the nomination. More democrats are motivated to take part in this election. A lot more.
Interestingly, the rivalry between Clinton and Obama is also at least partially responsible for the massive increase in turnout for the Democrats. If both continued to run under separate party banners, would that still result in increased turnout for both at the presidential election? Enough for both of them to gain more votes than McCain? Could a continuing focus on Obama vs Clinton conceivably turn the resulting lack of media focus on John McCain into a positive for Obama and Clinton, as "lack of investigation of McCain" turns into "McCain's campaign founders due to lack of media interest"?
Like I said, crackheaded, and the actual effect of such an official split would most likely be to end up handing the presidency to John McCain by default (which would at least be slightly amusing given that he only really won the Republican nomination by default when all the other candidates proved too sucky). But still...
With the Republican Party so discredited in the electorate, and with the reins of power within the Republican Party so tightly held by the far right, is it possible, as I've seen suggested, that the Republican Party is actually dying? Will this be the final election in which they compete as a serious contender?
If the Republican Party is dying, the Democratic Party would be poised to become the only major political party in existence. I instinctively distrust one party rule, no matter which party. I assume that most voters in democratic societies feel much the same way, and would look for a way to redress the balance. A new political party would eventually spring up - perhaps forming when, say, a large and dissatisfied bloc within the existing single party tears away and strikes out on their own.
Which brings me to the rift in the Democratic Party between supporters of Obama and supporters of Clinton. And the crackheaded idea that, if all the above is going to happen eventually, why wait? Divide the party between the two candidates now, circumventing the problem of trying to get the two sides to line up behind one candidate, and get on with it.
The problem of course is that the Republican party is not completely discredited in the eyes of the vast majority of the American voting public. Not yet, anyway. And fielding both Obama and Clinton under separate party banners could, in the winner takes all system of the US Presidential election, very easily hand the presidency to McCain by default.
And yet....I have yet to see a poll which offers people a choice between three preferred candidates rather than two. I wonder if such a poll would paint a slightly different picture to the two-person preferred question that every pollster has been asking. Plus with optional voting, turnout matters, and in the 2008 primaries the Democrats have been absolutely killing the Republicans in turnout, even long before McCain finally clinched the nomination. More democrats are motivated to take part in this election. A lot more.
Interestingly, the rivalry between Clinton and Obama is also at least partially responsible for the massive increase in turnout for the Democrats. If both continued to run under separate party banners, would that still result in increased turnout for both at the presidential election? Enough for both of them to gain more votes than McCain? Could a continuing focus on Obama vs Clinton conceivably turn the resulting lack of media focus on John McCain into a positive for Obama and Clinton, as "lack of investigation of McCain" turns into "McCain's campaign founders due to lack of media interest"?
Like I said, crackheaded, and the actual effect of such an official split would most likely be to end up handing the presidency to John McCain by default (which would at least be slightly amusing given that he only really won the Republican nomination by default when all the other candidates proved too sucky). But still...
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Hillary's gas tax holiday: why she's really pushing it
First, I have to give Hillary Clinton credit for successfully hijacking the issue from John McCain and making herself get identified in the media as the most prominent proponent of it.
But yes, the gas tax holiday idea is economically stupid, not least because, as Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw said in this article: "What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept . . . by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers". Cut the tax and the oil companies will continue to charge what the market can bear, which means they'll jack up the price so that it was exactly the same as it was before the tax was cut.
But it's not at all politically stupid once you figure out what the real goal is: it's not to reduce gas prices, it's to make Hillary Clinton more popular.
So the oil companies will raise their prices if the tax goes away? Then it's not Hillary Clinton's fault that the gas tax holiday hasn't reduced the price, it's the fault of the evil old oil companies for "denying hard-working Americans the relief of the Hillary Clinton[tm] gas tax holiday". The fact that such "denying of relief" is an economic inevitability must be carefully ignored, indeed must be actively suppressed. Hence you see Hillary painting all those pointing out the truth of what will happen as "elitists" who are "working against the interests of ordinary Americans".
The image she's aiming for is one of Hillary Clinton heroically sticking up for the little guy in the face of evil special interest groups that are putting profit before people. The actual result of the gas tax holiday is irrelevant to the effort of painting this image. Criticism of the results of the policy, while important to make, won't make the slightest difference in whether she pushes this idea or not. Indeed, they can be helpful in painting the picture she's trying to create if she can get the objectors identified with the evil special interest groups she's presenting herself as opposing. It's all about the image, not the policy.
What's really disturbing about this is such an image strategy depends very heavily not just on voters not being well-versed in how the gas tax holiday would actually play out, but on making a virtue of ignorance: people must not know what would actually happen and why. The ramifications of that are a little too disturbing for me to contemplate right now.
But yes, the gas tax holiday idea is economically stupid, not least because, as Harvard professor N. Gregory Mankiw said in this article: "What you learn in Economics 101 is that if producers can't produce much more, when you cut the tax on that good the tax is kept . . . by the suppliers and is not passed on to consumers". Cut the tax and the oil companies will continue to charge what the market can bear, which means they'll jack up the price so that it was exactly the same as it was before the tax was cut.
But it's not at all politically stupid once you figure out what the real goal is: it's not to reduce gas prices, it's to make Hillary Clinton more popular.
So the oil companies will raise their prices if the tax goes away? Then it's not Hillary Clinton's fault that the gas tax holiday hasn't reduced the price, it's the fault of the evil old oil companies for "denying hard-working Americans the relief of the Hillary Clinton[tm] gas tax holiday". The fact that such "denying of relief" is an economic inevitability must be carefully ignored, indeed must be actively suppressed. Hence you see Hillary painting all those pointing out the truth of what will happen as "elitists" who are "working against the interests of ordinary Americans".
The image she's aiming for is one of Hillary Clinton heroically sticking up for the little guy in the face of evil special interest groups that are putting profit before people. The actual result of the gas tax holiday is irrelevant to the effort of painting this image. Criticism of the results of the policy, while important to make, won't make the slightest difference in whether she pushes this idea or not. Indeed, they can be helpful in painting the picture she's trying to create if she can get the objectors identified with the evil special interest groups she's presenting herself as opposing. It's all about the image, not the policy.
What's really disturbing about this is such an image strategy depends very heavily not just on voters not being well-versed in how the gas tax holiday would actually play out, but on making a virtue of ignorance: people must not know what would actually happen and why. The ramifications of that are a little too disturbing for me to contemplate right now.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The misunderstanding of "prejudice" itself
There's a thing about "homophobia", and a general dislike for the use of the term, that's been in the back of my mind for a while. The brouhaha over race that's been simmering in the US sort of expanded that in my mind to the whole concept of prejudice generally. It comes down to two things.
First, I believe that the vast majority of people who engage in poor treatment of another on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, any difference like that at all, do it completely unconsciously. In fact, such people would get insulted at the very idea that they might want to behave in such a way, stating quite accurately that they never intended to do so. Even when they did. This applies even to people who go out of their way not to be prejudiced: there is an unconscious aspect to such poor treatment which is hard to overcome unless it can be consciously perceived.
Second, and problematically, the way we talk about prejudice utterly fails to recognise this. My perception is that using the phrase "racist" or "homophobic", or even "prejudiced", to describe a person's attitude or behaviour always implies a deliberate intent: people accused of these things supposedly want to treat a group as inferior, and think it wrong to treat them as equals. Worse, there is a significant moral sting to the words: "racism", "homophobia", "bigotry" and the like imply not just misguided ideas, not just a lack of familiarity which breeds misunderstanding, but an actual evil act.
An argument can be made that the plain definition of these words don't include these implications of a deliberate choice to commit an evil act on the part of the accused. But I'm talking about how these words are used, not some idealised definition. In actual practice, the words we use to describe prejudice, racism, homophobia and so forth all carry this moral sting: they are an accusation that a person is intentionally evil.
So how should the majority of unequal treatment that is not motivated by evil, and not deliberately chosen, be described? A phrase like "unconscious racism" is inadequate I think, as the intentional aspect of the idea of "racism" is too entrenched in the use of the word. After some thought, I think the best way to describe such attitudes and behaviour would be "thoughtless". So, to take an example from my own life, a person who might say something like "bisexuals are just homosexuals who still have one foot in the closet" isn't "biphobic", but is exhibiting a thoughtlessness about the experience and life of bisexual people.
Thoughtlessness about a group of people is not intentional, but it is difficult to overcome: the opposite of thoughtlessness if thoughtfulness, which is a conscious process. It takes effort, all the time. This fact also helps explain how a person who themselves is in a group that gets treated poorly, homosexuals for instance, can still potentially treat a different group poorly, like, say, bisexuals. In this case, a gay person is thoughtful about their own poor treatment (well they'd have to be, wouldn't they), but may remain thoughtless about the way they treat bisexuals.
None of this is to say that there are no genuinely prejudiced people out there: some people can and do deliberately and intentionally view some groups as inherently inferior to others. The task then becomes one of separating the two: of knowing who is prejudiced, and who is simply thoughtless. There is no ready-made, easy way to do that, but it needs to be done.
Otherwise, much poor treatment towards minority groups will remain impossible to solve because the description of the people engaging in it as "racist", "homophobic" or "prejudiced" will, quite legitimately, prompt an outraged defense that they see all people as equal. Many people who engage in such poor treatment genuinely do see all people as equal, and want to treat all people as equal, but won't realise that they're not treating all people equal unless it's pointed out, without rancour and without being accusative, that they are engaging in such unequal treatment unconsciously.
First, I believe that the vast majority of people who engage in poor treatment of another on the basis of race, sexuality, gender, any difference like that at all, do it completely unconsciously. In fact, such people would get insulted at the very idea that they might want to behave in such a way, stating quite accurately that they never intended to do so. Even when they did. This applies even to people who go out of their way not to be prejudiced: there is an unconscious aspect to such poor treatment which is hard to overcome unless it can be consciously perceived.
Second, and problematically, the way we talk about prejudice utterly fails to recognise this. My perception is that using the phrase "racist" or "homophobic", or even "prejudiced", to describe a person's attitude or behaviour always implies a deliberate intent: people accused of these things supposedly want to treat a group as inferior, and think it wrong to treat them as equals. Worse, there is a significant moral sting to the words: "racism", "homophobia", "bigotry" and the like imply not just misguided ideas, not just a lack of familiarity which breeds misunderstanding, but an actual evil act.
An argument can be made that the plain definition of these words don't include these implications of a deliberate choice to commit an evil act on the part of the accused. But I'm talking about how these words are used, not some idealised definition. In actual practice, the words we use to describe prejudice, racism, homophobia and so forth all carry this moral sting: they are an accusation that a person is intentionally evil.
So how should the majority of unequal treatment that is not motivated by evil, and not deliberately chosen, be described? A phrase like "unconscious racism" is inadequate I think, as the intentional aspect of the idea of "racism" is too entrenched in the use of the word. After some thought, I think the best way to describe such attitudes and behaviour would be "thoughtless". So, to take an example from my own life, a person who might say something like "bisexuals are just homosexuals who still have one foot in the closet" isn't "biphobic", but is exhibiting a thoughtlessness about the experience and life of bisexual people.
Thoughtlessness about a group of people is not intentional, but it is difficult to overcome: the opposite of thoughtlessness if thoughtfulness, which is a conscious process. It takes effort, all the time. This fact also helps explain how a person who themselves is in a group that gets treated poorly, homosexuals for instance, can still potentially treat a different group poorly, like, say, bisexuals. In this case, a gay person is thoughtful about their own poor treatment (well they'd have to be, wouldn't they), but may remain thoughtless about the way they treat bisexuals.
None of this is to say that there are no genuinely prejudiced people out there: some people can and do deliberately and intentionally view some groups as inherently inferior to others. The task then becomes one of separating the two: of knowing who is prejudiced, and who is simply thoughtless. There is no ready-made, easy way to do that, but it needs to be done.
Otherwise, much poor treatment towards minority groups will remain impossible to solve because the description of the people engaging in it as "racist", "homophobic" or "prejudiced" will, quite legitimately, prompt an outraged defense that they see all people as equal. Many people who engage in such poor treatment genuinely do see all people as equal, and want to treat all people as equal, but won't realise that they're not treating all people equal unless it's pointed out, without rancour and without being accusative, that they are engaging in such unequal treatment unconsciously.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The priest and the propagandist
This is impressive: a Fox News reporter interviews a catholic priest about Jeremiah Wright. The reporter gets completely and totally pwned.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Fun historical fact for the day
The term "Cold War" was first used by a Spanish writer in the 14th century to describe the conflict between the Christian and the Muslim worlds.
Or so my readings for uni claim. They tend to be more reliable than other sources of info.
Or so my readings for uni claim. They tend to be more reliable than other sources of info.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Freedom of speech and the responsibility for reactions to it
Pondering the Day of Silence that occurs in American high schools had me looking at some of the free speech issues involved. America of course has much greater leeway than Australia when it comes to freedom of student expression (that wonderful First Amendment of theirs). The specific application of the First Amendment to the issue of student rights was dealt with in the landmark case Tinker vs Des Moines School District, in which it was held that school officials could not ban students from wearing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war. The court held that student speech cannot be infringed unless it can be shown that it "would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school" to allow the speech. Importantly, a school must "be able to show that its action [in restricting speech] was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint." I'm told that the precedent set has been watered down somewhat in recent years, but it's worthwhile to note the general principle here: even unpopular speech that the majority will disagree with cannot be banned on that basis alone.
The dissenting voice of Justice Black that the armbands were disruptive is also illuminating for the reason he gave as to why he thought that way: "While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, detailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them, and a warning by an older football player that other, nonprotesting students had better let them alone. "
Interesting how Justice Black insists that the armband students should be considered responsible for the disruption and distortion that other students caused in response to the armbands. Are they responsible? I don't think they are.
When Muslims around the world protested the publication of the Danish caricatures, sometimes violently, the view that the violence of the protests was the responsibility of the cartoons' publishers was resoundingly rejected by free speech advocates. Yet here, at a much smaller level, disruption caused by students in reaction to unpopular speech was blamed not on the students being disruptive, but on the unpopular speech. I'm guessing that Justice Black was not a big fan of Vietnam war opponents' views, and that had something to do with who he blamed for the disruption that was actually the responsibility of the people who threatened people for daring to publicly express an unpopular opinion.
Conservative Christian parents are currently being encouraged to pull their kids out of school on the Day of Silence. If they do that, I hope that they are willing to see their children bear the brunt of the punishment that any delinquent child should get for non-attendance. I hope also that they do not try to blame their own sabotage of their childrens' education on other students expressing their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Unpopular speech that provokes an anti-social reaction is not responsible for that reaction: the person reacting anti-socially is responsible for it.
The dissenting voice of Justice Black that the armbands were disruptive is also illuminating for the reason he gave as to why he thought that way: "While the record does not show that any of these armband students shouted, used profane language, or were violent in any manner, detailed testimony by some of them shows their armbands caused comments, warnings by other students, the poking of fun at them, and a warning by an older football player that other, nonprotesting students had better let them alone. "
Interesting how Justice Black insists that the armband students should be considered responsible for the disruption and distortion that other students caused in response to the armbands. Are they responsible? I don't think they are.
When Muslims around the world protested the publication of the Danish caricatures, sometimes violently, the view that the violence of the protests was the responsibility of the cartoons' publishers was resoundingly rejected by free speech advocates. Yet here, at a much smaller level, disruption caused by students in reaction to unpopular speech was blamed not on the students being disruptive, but on the unpopular speech. I'm guessing that Justice Black was not a big fan of Vietnam war opponents' views, and that had something to do with who he blamed for the disruption that was actually the responsibility of the people who threatened people for daring to publicly express an unpopular opinion.
Conservative Christian parents are currently being encouraged to pull their kids out of school on the Day of Silence. If they do that, I hope that they are willing to see their children bear the brunt of the punishment that any delinquent child should get for non-attendance. I hope also that they do not try to blame their own sabotage of their childrens' education on other students expressing their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech. Unpopular speech that provokes an anti-social reaction is not responsible for that reaction: the person reacting anti-socially is responsible for it.
Friday, April 18, 2008
American "journalism": it's worse than you think
It's not uncommon for people of all political stripes to complain about general media bias (ie, that it's not biased far enough their way) or complain that the media doesn't cover the issues that are really important (ie, the issues that they want to see covered). But I still think something is badly wrong when an American opinion columnist named David Brooks baldly declares that:
And here was I thinking that the journalist's job was to report the truth about issues of importance to the public. That's the role that the Fourth Estate plays in a free society, isn't it? But no, the American mediocracy have just openly stated that they see their job as nothing more than creating cheap and tawdry political theatre for the sake of...actually, the why of it isn't even explained. "Making politicians uncomfortable" has become an end in itself.
To their credit, many of the commenters on Brooks' self-serving defence of the undeserved position of privilege occupied by himself and his drinking buddies (buddies who include Presidential candidate John McCain, incidentally) have recognised the severe problem with Brooks' self-perception of what it is he is supposed to do. Most of them aren't quite as alarmed about it as I am, though.
A free media is a vital institution for a liberal democracy. The media needs to hold the government of the day accountable, by all means. Is it only just in the past few years that people are asking whose been holding the media accountable?
It seems so, and the answer seems fairly clear: nobody has. Brooks' redefinition of the journalist's job into one that has no actual point - ribbing politicians just for the sake of ribbing politicians - is proof of that. I'm sorry, but isn't that territory already covered by the Daily Show? On a comedy channel? Why do we need journalists wasting their time doing the same thing, only in a way that's not funny?
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the American media has become a power unto itself, with no loyalty to the people whose interests they supposedly represent. That is a dangerous situation. I would even go so far as to say it is a threat to freedom. Hyperbole? Maybe. But I think it's important to see the American mediocracy subjected to the same accountability that we would expect to be applied to anyone in a free society who is granted the responsibility of power over others. And in the Information Age, the people who control what is and isn't "newsworthy" and "important to viewers" have a LOT of power over others, so their requirements for accountability should be especially high.
I just wish I knew how to go about implementing that accountability in a meaningful way.
The journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities.
And here was I thinking that the journalist's job was to report the truth about issues of importance to the public. That's the role that the Fourth Estate plays in a free society, isn't it? But no, the American mediocracy have just openly stated that they see their job as nothing more than creating cheap and tawdry political theatre for the sake of...actually, the why of it isn't even explained. "Making politicians uncomfortable" has become an end in itself.
To their credit, many of the commenters on Brooks' self-serving defence of the undeserved position of privilege occupied by himself and his drinking buddies (buddies who include Presidential candidate John McCain, incidentally) have recognised the severe problem with Brooks' self-perception of what it is he is supposed to do. Most of them aren't quite as alarmed about it as I am, though.
A free media is a vital institution for a liberal democracy. The media needs to hold the government of the day accountable, by all means. Is it only just in the past few years that people are asking whose been holding the media accountable?
It seems so, and the answer seems fairly clear: nobody has. Brooks' redefinition of the journalist's job into one that has no actual point - ribbing politicians just for the sake of ribbing politicians - is proof of that. I'm sorry, but isn't that territory already covered by the Daily Show? On a comedy channel? Why do we need journalists wasting their time doing the same thing, only in a way that's not funny?
From the outside looking in, it seems to me that the American media has become a power unto itself, with no loyalty to the people whose interests they supposedly represent. That is a dangerous situation. I would even go so far as to say it is a threat to freedom. Hyperbole? Maybe. But I think it's important to see the American mediocracy subjected to the same accountability that we would expect to be applied to anyone in a free society who is granted the responsibility of power over others. And in the Information Age, the people who control what is and isn't "newsworthy" and "important to viewers" have a LOT of power over others, so their requirements for accountability should be especially high.
I just wish I knew how to go about implementing that accountability in a meaningful way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)