![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rationality and allyship as identities
Aug. 4th, 2023 09:21 amAs an identity, "rational" is like "ally": A self-congratulatory pat on the back that excuses complacency. Rationality and alliance are things that we do, not things that we are.
I did it! I've just had the key insight that reconciles "everyone we believe to be good people" with "everyone exacerbating a deadly pandemic by behaving incautiously".
It requires some background info, but I'm going to lead with it anyway, so as to not keep you waiting.
The way people make social choices varies in the degree to which those choices are automatic versus considered. This is analogous to how people's immune systems vary in the degree to which they are sensitive to a potential threat.
There is no single "right" place to be on either of these spectra. Advantages can be found in both directions. Automatic social decisions have served most people well, but have failed them at a time when critical thought would have done the job correctly.
On the assumption that you don't study immunology, and/or haven't read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, here's the full explanation.
If your immune system is calibrated to respond to just about anything, then it will often get "false positives" when evaluating threats, and wind up attacking your own tissues, creating an autoimmune disorder... But it may also be robust enough to fight off an HIV infection without the help of medication! A less responsive immune system gives a much more relaxed life, without the chronic pain and exhaustion of an autoimmune disorder... Until it fails to fight off a deadly disease. Or, ironically, until you get a disease that gives you an autoimmune disorder. *cough*Covid*cough*
The level of sensitivity of your immune system is a balancing act between making wrong calls in two different directions. Either type of wrong call might be bad, so there's no single "correct" level of sensitivity that works under all circumstances.
Let's move on. Decision making falls into two broad categories: System 1 and System 2, to use Kahneman's terms. System 1 is automatic, effortless decision that comes from instinct or experience. System 2 is deliberate, conscious consideration. Both of these are extremely useful. In a social context, System 1 guides most people in how to make eye contact with a stranger in a park and say, "Good morning". People employ System 2 to face challenges, such as how to deal with a coworker spreading lies.
Sometimes, System 1 is the superior choice. You can use System 2 when saying "Good morning" to a stranger. Some people do. It is exhausting! Engaging System 2 for every social situation uses up a person's mental energy. Doing it all the time can lead to burnout. And in some situations, going with your gut feeling (System 1) will get you the right answer, when your System 2 just cannot fathom how you could know such a thing.
Sometimes, System 2 is the superior choice. System 1 makes people assume that nine-tenths of 110 is 100, until they think about it. System 1 might have you instinctively speak against your coworker and their lies. But then your other coworkers might just see you as getting defensive, and the managers may feel that because you're the one making a scene, you are the problem that they have to deal with. System 2 can help you plan to (depending on your knowledge and skills) win the good graces of your lying coworker, have their lies revealed unambiguously, or talk to Human Resources with the phrase "toxic work environment" to get their attention.
People vary greatly in the degrees to which they employ each of these systems, and even that varies across contexts. An experienced knitter can knit without thinking about it (using System 1), just to keep their hands busy while they watch a university lecture. But that knitter's social anxiety might have them using System 2 to try to read meaning into every social interaction, to figure out where they stand and what they should do.
People who have a great deal of social experience, and who do not have social anxiety, use System 1 for almost every social decision. This is a self-reinforcing pattern: Their willingness to do social stuff without worrying about it leads them to get a great deal of social experience, which in turn makes it easier to do social stuff without worrying about it. Their System 1 gets very good at usually making the correct decisions.
Some people don't conform to that. A "weird kid" with a reclusive childhood may not get enough social experience to use System 1 reliably. Autistic people, people who feel unsafe, and any others who "overthink" have a strong tendency to prefer System 2 to System 1, at least until they are comfortable and experienced with a skill. This can exclude them from the positive feedback loop of just carelessly socializing until they get good at it.
Some circumstances tend to automatically invoke System 1. Those are the ones exploited by salespeople and pundits to keep people away from the conclusions that conscious thought would bring. (See Robert Cialdini's Influence: Science and Practice for more on this.) "Do whatever you see everyone else doing" is an extremely powerful System 1 motivator.
And so we reach the pandemic. The American right wing resisted quarantines, lockdowns, vaccinations, and masks at all opportunities. After the lockdowns and mask mandates ended, if you were a normal person, acting cautiously and just going out occasionally as needed, whom did you see? Right wingers happily wandering unmasked through all public spaces, dining indoors, watching films, and attending crowded concerts. There may have been just as many people who knew better, but we were all staying home! We could speak out online, but we couldn't provide examples of good behavior in public, because we weren't in public.
Two splits happened. First, everyone who relied primarily on System 1 for their social decisions witnessed the largely unmasked public. Without conscious consideration, they did what they saw everyone else doing, because that has always worked for them!
This leaves those who did consciously consider the decision, either because they habitually use their System 2, or because they had a powerful reason such as being immunocompromized or having a vulnerable household member.
That group also split. Lots of us kept our masks and our distance. Some didn't understand the continued risks of Covid and long Covid. Some couldn't or wouldn't bear the inconvenience and isolation, and perhaps lacked the knowledge or ability to get affordable, high quality masks. Some let their fear of looking different outweigh the chance of killing people.
A frustrating and disheartening problem, aside from the pandemic disabling and killing people, is that only the second split was obvious! People have been rightly seeing this as, "We disabled and vulnerable people have been betrayed by a society of abled people who have chosen to murder us rather than wear a mask." Or, "We Autistic people are choosing to do the right thing, at great cost to ourselves, while allistic people will betray humanity for a hamburger." Or, "We who follow the research understand that Covid commonly causes brain damage, organ failure, ME/CFS, and other disabling and deadly conditions, even if it just presents outwardly as a cold. We're spreading the word, and nobody is listening or changing their behavior. Why the hell is nobody listening?"
We all saw the second split: The one where people thought about it, and chose to kill. It wrecked our faith in most of humanity. But we didn't notice the first split. We didn't see people using the system that they had always used to save them the immense trouble of thinking about social decisions: The system that had reliably worked for them in the past, but which was not calibrated to this particular situation, when "do whatever you see everyone else doing" yields the wrong answer.
It's not so much that they made an awful moral choice. They didn't make a choice at all.
This sounds like damning criticism. But remember that it came from where they happen to fall on the sliding scale of "how much to rely on System 1 in social situations". That spot does not have a moral value, good or bad. It often — almost always — works out better than being toward the more deliberately thoughtful end of the scale would. Just like an immune system that isn't always ramped up and trying to kill you, a reliance on System 1 is a good tool; it just happened to be the wrong tool for this circumstance.
I love my friends. I still love my friends who are doing the wrong thing. I think I understand now that it's not so much them betraying us: It is their behavioral habits betraying them.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't feel enraged by those who have thought about it, and still chose to kill, or by those who willfully refuse to hear about the dangers. That is enraging, and ought to be.
Nor does today's insight lead to a solution. Once someone has made a decision, even thoughtlessly, they will defend it, making up retroactive justifications: Both for the sake of their self-image and in order to not appear inconsistent. So we can't change minds just by asking them to start thinking. It will take much more than that. Going with the majority feels viscerally safe to them in a way that masking against an invisible virus does not. Fear of the mob is a powerful weapon of the right wing against everyone, not just against their own. The thoughtless no doubt feel personally attacked after they do exactly what they infer society is instructing them to do, only to have others of us tell them that they have done wrong. If we are treating them so unfairly (they feel), why should they listen to us? I don't know how to help them understand that they should fear Covid more than they fear getting dirty looks from fascists. But we can at least continue setting a good example, including being out in public in an N95 or P100 mask. You never know who just needs a little nudge to help them find courage.
Finally, to my friends and all others who are making the right choice: I appreciate you so damn much. I cannot overstate this. You are why I still have faith.
(Oh yeah, that! Thank people for their caution. Also, to be clear: If you're reading this, we're probably on the same side, whether our levels of precaution are in the top 90th percentile or top 99th. There are lots of valid ways to be cautious. My disappointment is directed only at people who behave like there's no pandemic, like it doesn't matter, or like they want to spread it. None of it is for people who are working hard to not be part of the problem.)
It requires some background info, but I'm going to lead with it anyway, so as to not keep you waiting.
The way people make social choices varies in the degree to which those choices are automatic versus considered. This is analogous to how people's immune systems vary in the degree to which they are sensitive to a potential threat.
There is no single "right" place to be on either of these spectra. Advantages can be found in both directions. Automatic social decisions have served most people well, but have failed them at a time when critical thought would have done the job correctly.
On the assumption that you don't study immunology, and/or haven't read Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow, here's the full explanation.
If your immune system is calibrated to respond to just about anything, then it will often get "false positives" when evaluating threats, and wind up attacking your own tissues, creating an autoimmune disorder... But it may also be robust enough to fight off an HIV infection without the help of medication! A less responsive immune system gives a much more relaxed life, without the chronic pain and exhaustion of an autoimmune disorder... Until it fails to fight off a deadly disease. Or, ironically, until you get a disease that gives you an autoimmune disorder. *cough*Covid*cough*
The level of sensitivity of your immune system is a balancing act between making wrong calls in two different directions. Either type of wrong call might be bad, so there's no single "correct" level of sensitivity that works under all circumstances.
Let's move on. Decision making falls into two broad categories: System 1 and System 2, to use Kahneman's terms. System 1 is automatic, effortless decision that comes from instinct or experience. System 2 is deliberate, conscious consideration. Both of these are extremely useful. In a social context, System 1 guides most people in how to make eye contact with a stranger in a park and say, "Good morning". People employ System 2 to face challenges, such as how to deal with a coworker spreading lies.
Sometimes, System 1 is the superior choice. You can use System 2 when saying "Good morning" to a stranger. Some people do. It is exhausting! Engaging System 2 for every social situation uses up a person's mental energy. Doing it all the time can lead to burnout. And in some situations, going with your gut feeling (System 1) will get you the right answer, when your System 2 just cannot fathom how you could know such a thing.
Sometimes, System 2 is the superior choice. System 1 makes people assume that nine-tenths of 110 is 100, until they think about it. System 1 might have you instinctively speak against your coworker and their lies. But then your other coworkers might just see you as getting defensive, and the managers may feel that because you're the one making a scene, you are the problem that they have to deal with. System 2 can help you plan to (depending on your knowledge and skills) win the good graces of your lying coworker, have their lies revealed unambiguously, or talk to Human Resources with the phrase "toxic work environment" to get their attention.
People vary greatly in the degrees to which they employ each of these systems, and even that varies across contexts. An experienced knitter can knit without thinking about it (using System 1), just to keep their hands busy while they watch a university lecture. But that knitter's social anxiety might have them using System 2 to try to read meaning into every social interaction, to figure out where they stand and what they should do.
People who have a great deal of social experience, and who do not have social anxiety, use System 1 for almost every social decision. This is a self-reinforcing pattern: Their willingness to do social stuff without worrying about it leads them to get a great deal of social experience, which in turn makes it easier to do social stuff without worrying about it. Their System 1 gets very good at usually making the correct decisions.
Some people don't conform to that. A "weird kid" with a reclusive childhood may not get enough social experience to use System 1 reliably. Autistic people, people who feel unsafe, and any others who "overthink" have a strong tendency to prefer System 2 to System 1, at least until they are comfortable and experienced with a skill. This can exclude them from the positive feedback loop of just carelessly socializing until they get good at it.
Some circumstances tend to automatically invoke System 1. Those are the ones exploited by salespeople and pundits to keep people away from the conclusions that conscious thought would bring. (See Robert Cialdini's Influence: Science and Practice for more on this.) "Do whatever you see everyone else doing" is an extremely powerful System 1 motivator.
And so we reach the pandemic. The American right wing resisted quarantines, lockdowns, vaccinations, and masks at all opportunities. After the lockdowns and mask mandates ended, if you were a normal person, acting cautiously and just going out occasionally as needed, whom did you see? Right wingers happily wandering unmasked through all public spaces, dining indoors, watching films, and attending crowded concerts. There may have been just as many people who knew better, but we were all staying home! We could speak out online, but we couldn't provide examples of good behavior in public, because we weren't in public.
Two splits happened. First, everyone who relied primarily on System 1 for their social decisions witnessed the largely unmasked public. Without conscious consideration, they did what they saw everyone else doing, because that has always worked for them!
This leaves those who did consciously consider the decision, either because they habitually use their System 2, or because they had a powerful reason such as being immunocompromized or having a vulnerable household member.
That group also split. Lots of us kept our masks and our distance. Some didn't understand the continued risks of Covid and long Covid. Some couldn't or wouldn't bear the inconvenience and isolation, and perhaps lacked the knowledge or ability to get affordable, high quality masks. Some let their fear of looking different outweigh the chance of killing people.
A frustrating and disheartening problem, aside from the pandemic disabling and killing people, is that only the second split was obvious! People have been rightly seeing this as, "We disabled and vulnerable people have been betrayed by a society of abled people who have chosen to murder us rather than wear a mask." Or, "We Autistic people are choosing to do the right thing, at great cost to ourselves, while allistic people will betray humanity for a hamburger." Or, "We who follow the research understand that Covid commonly causes brain damage, organ failure, ME/CFS, and other disabling and deadly conditions, even if it just presents outwardly as a cold. We're spreading the word, and nobody is listening or changing their behavior. Why the hell is nobody listening?"
We all saw the second split: The one where people thought about it, and chose to kill. It wrecked our faith in most of humanity. But we didn't notice the first split. We didn't see people using the system that they had always used to save them the immense trouble of thinking about social decisions: The system that had reliably worked for them in the past, but which was not calibrated to this particular situation, when "do whatever you see everyone else doing" yields the wrong answer.
It's not so much that they made an awful moral choice. They didn't make a choice at all.
This sounds like damning criticism. But remember that it came from where they happen to fall on the sliding scale of "how much to rely on System 1 in social situations". That spot does not have a moral value, good or bad. It often — almost always — works out better than being toward the more deliberately thoughtful end of the scale would. Just like an immune system that isn't always ramped up and trying to kill you, a reliance on System 1 is a good tool; it just happened to be the wrong tool for this circumstance.
I love my friends. I still love my friends who are doing the wrong thing. I think I understand now that it's not so much them betraying us: It is their behavioral habits betraying them.
None of this is to say that we shouldn't feel enraged by those who have thought about it, and still chose to kill, or by those who willfully refuse to hear about the dangers. That is enraging, and ought to be.
Nor does today's insight lead to a solution. Once someone has made a decision, even thoughtlessly, they will defend it, making up retroactive justifications: Both for the sake of their self-image and in order to not appear inconsistent. So we can't change minds just by asking them to start thinking. It will take much more than that. Going with the majority feels viscerally safe to them in a way that masking against an invisible virus does not. Fear of the mob is a powerful weapon of the right wing against everyone, not just against their own. The thoughtless no doubt feel personally attacked after they do exactly what they infer society is instructing them to do, only to have others of us tell them that they have done wrong. If we are treating them so unfairly (they feel), why should they listen to us? I don't know how to help them understand that they should fear Covid more than they fear getting dirty looks from fascists. But we can at least continue setting a good example, including being out in public in an N95 or P100 mask. You never know who just needs a little nudge to help them find courage.
Finally, to my friends and all others who are making the right choice: I appreciate you so damn much. I cannot overstate this. You are why I still have faith.
(Oh yeah, that! Thank people for their caution. Also, to be clear: If you're reading this, we're probably on the same side, whether our levels of precaution are in the top 90th percentile or top 99th. There are lots of valid ways to be cautious. My disappointment is directed only at people who behave like there's no pandemic, like it doesn't matter, or like they want to spread it. None of it is for people who are working hard to not be part of the problem.)
Failure to ostracize
May. 31st, 2022 12:42 pmThere is an indirect but real harm that I will call "failure to ostracize". Last year, I realized something peculiar about this harm: It cannot, in and of itself, be a harm worthy of ostracizing. I don't mean anything about how bad this particular harm is or isn't: I mean that logically, that consequence would break the world.
Call it a transitive property, or proof by induction, or whatever you like. Assume that it is appropriate to ostracize someone for failing to ostracize someone else. One person, Perry Problematic, does something bad, in such circumstances that the best course of action is to ostracize them for it. A handful of people continue their association with Perry. Those people need to be ostracized. Then, everyone who associates with those people need to be ostracized. This "guilt by association" continues to spread out, and soon encompasses everyone in the world aside from a few isolated populations and hermits.
There are plenty of other ways that a person might address a failure to ostracize: Calling in, calling out, orbital lasers, etc. But if you think it's right to ostracize someone for it, you must ostracize everyone you know, even your most upright heroes, or you must be inconsistent in applying your rules.
There's an awful lot more to say on the subject, and it's the sort of high-selmer, deep dive post that I would like to spend ten hours writing while I forget to eat. (A selmer is a unit equal to tangents per second. If you know, you know.) The discussion of whether to ostracize someone, and the consequences, costs, and viability thereof, touches on:
Call it a transitive property, or proof by induction, or whatever you like. Assume that it is appropriate to ostracize someone for failing to ostracize someone else. One person, Perry Problematic, does something bad, in such circumstances that the best course of action is to ostracize them for it. A handful of people continue their association with Perry. Those people need to be ostracized. Then, everyone who associates with those people need to be ostracized. This "guilt by association" continues to spread out, and soon encompasses everyone in the world aside from a few isolated populations and hermits.
There are plenty of other ways that a person might address a failure to ostracize: Calling in, calling out, orbital lasers, etc. But if you think it's right to ostracize someone for it, you must ostracize everyone you know, even your most upright heroes, or you must be inconsistent in applying your rules.
There's an awful lot more to say on the subject, and it's the sort of high-selmer, deep dive post that I would like to spend ten hours writing while I forget to eat. (A selmer is a unit equal to tangents per second. If you know, you know.) The discussion of whether to ostracize someone, and the consequences, costs, and viability thereof, touches on:
- Geek Social Fallacies
- Childhood trauma
- Conscious versus subconscious reasoning
- Social proof
- Missing stairs
- Social capital/privilege
- Pandemic behaviors
- Bullying
- PAX
- Daryl Davis
- Other stuff that will occur to me while writing, beyond the ten minutes spent composing the post in my head before getting up this morning.
Is respecting children a faux pas?
Oct. 12th, 2016 01:18 pmSome decades ago, during my college days (yes, I'm getting old), I accompanied a friend to his family gathering. I wound up engrossed in conversation with his stepsister J., age 15, whose knowledge and insight impressed me. At dinner, the three of us occupied a conversational niche at the middle of the table. The conversation at the table's end was the sort of speculation that often entertains dinner companions: The women of their parents' and grandparents' generations were taking turns sharing their explanations of some curious phenomenon. They took each other seriously, even though none of them had anything convincing to say on the subject. (My apologies: As much as these events have impressed themselves upon me, the intervening years have been more than sufficient to steal the subject itself from my memory.) A slightly heated debate ensued. At an appropriate gap in the adults' conversation, J., who was seated at their edge, made the usual gesture to draw attention. She began to submit a solution to the question under discussion, in the simple, explanatory tone of one who knows the answer. The adults avoided eye contact with J., and one of them immediately started talking over her (not to her; only to the others), so that they did not hear more than three words from her. It was smoothly done, as if J. had merely tried to interject during an insufficient pause. She politely waited for another pause, and was then interrupted in an identical manner. After the third time it happened, she gave up.
( The rest is behind a cut for the sake of your feed, but you know you want to read it. )
All right, I'm getting sidetracked. tl;dr: I like to show respect.
( The rest is behind a cut for the sake of your feed, but you know you want to read it. )
All right, I'm getting sidetracked. tl;dr: I like to show respect.
Complacency with wit
Oct. 11th, 2016 03:54 pmThere is a specific bad habit of thought that is partly to blame for things like Libertarianism and phys-splaining. It is one with which I used to be intimately familiar, and which took a long time to break.
If I may start with an example, in high school physics (including A.P. physics), there was almost no material that a smart student needed to learn. I found early on that I could goof off during class, never read the textbook, and still ace every test. I didn't need to learn the formulas to solve the mechanical problems, because they could all be derived from conservation of energy, F=ma, and E=mv2. Most of the electricity and magnetism unit involved learning jargon for concepts that were intuitive if you could construct metaphorical isomorphisms between things like voltage and water pressure.
A child or young adult who is very good at problem solving can get used to always being right, because the problems that they face do not require learning a wealth of background information. In their experience, someone who disagrees with them just hasn't figured it out yet.
Once this person starts dealing with real world problems, they run into disagreements with people who have far more experience in the subjects. Their old assumptions about their ability to discern truth become maladaptive. They don't realize that they're getting wrong answers by oversimplifying and failing to respect others' understanding. Sometimes, they read Atlas Shrugged, then idolize the captains of industry, decry government regulation, and live in a fantasy world in which wealth and power are meritocratic. But they fail to pay attention to the real world, in which the captains of industry achieve their status through a combination of inherited wealth, large scale theft and murder, and corrupt control over regulators. Privilege in general has a particular hold over these habitually smart but ignorant folks, because they find laughable the idea that the world is so very different from what they were brought up to believe.
Yes, I went through that phase. Luckily, I lacked the second ingredient that keeps smart kids in blissful ignorance: A fragile ego. Discovering that I had been wrong was embarrassing as hell, but the desire to be a better person meant that I had to change my mind. (Eventually, I was mortified that I had previously identified as a Libertarian.) Those with fragile egos will instead ease their embarrassment by finding any excuse, logical fallacy, or echo chamber to support their old beliefs.
I envy millennials' having grown up with social media. Access to real information, bypassing the editors of newspapers and social studies textbooks, would have greatly facilitated my personal growth during my formative years. And sure, even in the information age, people can still choose their own echo chambers, but that is now voluntary. Nobody with an Internet connection (outside of China) has to keep their eyes closed if they don't want to. And I see, as a result, a generation that is hugely more interested and engaged in world affairs, in politics, in the environment, and in the pressing issues of populations other than their own, than my generation was at their age.
There is no longer any excuse for staying smart, ignorant, and complacent. No matter how easy your school work is, the tough problems are a mouse click away.
If I may start with an example, in high school physics (including A.P. physics), there was almost no material that a smart student needed to learn. I found early on that I could goof off during class, never read the textbook, and still ace every test. I didn't need to learn the formulas to solve the mechanical problems, because they could all be derived from conservation of energy, F=ma, and E=mv2. Most of the electricity and magnetism unit involved learning jargon for concepts that were intuitive if you could construct metaphorical isomorphisms between things like voltage and water pressure.
A child or young adult who is very good at problem solving can get used to always being right, because the problems that they face do not require learning a wealth of background information. In their experience, someone who disagrees with them just hasn't figured it out yet.
Once this person starts dealing with real world problems, they run into disagreements with people who have far more experience in the subjects. Their old assumptions about their ability to discern truth become maladaptive. They don't realize that they're getting wrong answers by oversimplifying and failing to respect others' understanding. Sometimes, they read Atlas Shrugged, then idolize the captains of industry, decry government regulation, and live in a fantasy world in which wealth and power are meritocratic. But they fail to pay attention to the real world, in which the captains of industry achieve their status through a combination of inherited wealth, large scale theft and murder, and corrupt control over regulators. Privilege in general has a particular hold over these habitually smart but ignorant folks, because they find laughable the idea that the world is so very different from what they were brought up to believe.
Yes, I went through that phase. Luckily, I lacked the second ingredient that keeps smart kids in blissful ignorance: A fragile ego. Discovering that I had been wrong was embarrassing as hell, but the desire to be a better person meant that I had to change my mind. (Eventually, I was mortified that I had previously identified as a Libertarian.) Those with fragile egos will instead ease their embarrassment by finding any excuse, logical fallacy, or echo chamber to support their old beliefs.
I envy millennials' having grown up with social media. Access to real information, bypassing the editors of newspapers and social studies textbooks, would have greatly facilitated my personal growth during my formative years. And sure, even in the information age, people can still choose their own echo chambers, but that is now voluntary. Nobody with an Internet connection (outside of China) has to keep their eyes closed if they don't want to. And I see, as a result, a generation that is hugely more interested and engaged in world affairs, in politics, in the environment, and in the pressing issues of populations other than their own, than my generation was at their age.
There is no longer any excuse for staying smart, ignorant, and complacent. No matter how easy your school work is, the tough problems are a mouse click away.
Compliments (non-creepy)
Sep. 9th, 2016 04:14 pmOur blood drive was today. I often see the same phlebotomist, and told her, "I just get to lie here and read, while you're doing all the work. But I have noticed that you're working very efficiently." She smiled as she affirmed that she has gotten the hang of it over the past several months. Upon my entry, she had given me the same pleased look of recognition that my regular dental hygienist does, ever since I let her know that I appreciate the skill and care that she brings to her job. They both let me know that they look forward to seeing me next time.
I guarantee you, 100%, that the happy-to-see-me response is not because I'm some sexy, confident, alpha-male beast (whose stylized silver ring on the wrong hand does not much resemble a wedding band, though it is). Honestly, I feel, at heart, like a shy, awkward person who has practiced being nice to people enough to form a habit strong enough to overcome my introversion.
A compliment can make someone's day, or week. Complimenting someone's work is particularly pleasing: People put a lot of time and effort into getting good at things; appreciation of the results is rewarding.
Complimenting someone's appearance can be nice, but it comes with a couple of caveats. The first is that a person's appearance is much less under their own control than their work is, and so pride in appearance is not nearly as meaningful. The second is that it can come off as creepy and even threatening if the context suggests a possibility that the complimenter is aiming to get something in return, or is objectifying the recipient.
Hint: This creepy context usually means a man complimenting the appearance of a woman who is engaged in any activity at all other than actively trying to meet men. ("If you think women are crazy, you’ve never had a dude go from hitting on you to literally threatening to kill you in the time it takes you to say, 'no thanks'." - Kendra Wells.) A man's peaceful intentions alone cannot change this: Assuming she's not a mind reader (she's not), a sufficiently experienced woman's perception of the context (in which men's desire for and objectification of women encourages subhuman treatment including violence) is the same either way. There are workarounds for this: A female acquaintance of mine was quite pleased when a man said, "Excuse me, I just wanted to let you know that you are very beautiful," and then crossed the road and walked away before she could respond. His behavior clarified that he wasn't seeking anything from her, which allowed her to receive the compliment without suspicion.
When my wife and I are out, she's the one who delivers the well received compliments on someone's stunning hair, eyes, or dress. I don't even try. Though if I had to, I'd probably start with, "We just wanted to let you know..." In public, and establishing our existing relationship with the word "we," I doubt anyone would read desirous intentions into it.
Getting farther into speculation: I don't attend fandom conventions, but I love the costume photos and videos. If I were there in person, and wanted to compliment a woman's costume, I suspect that (if the costume is not highly covering) "I love your outfit!" could be interpreted as, "I love how you're showing off your body with that outfit! Thank you for enabling me to objectify you!" So I might instead try, "Great work on that outfit! It must have taken countless hours!" See that? I switched it from complimenting their appearance to complimenting their work, and clarifying my focus on their costume rather than their body. People familiar with convention etiquette: Am I on track here? Is there a better way to do it? (Edited: The original "better version" was phrased as a question rather than a statement, which Beth caught. A question demands time and attention, neither of which you are entitled to, and a question will also be wearying when asked by every fifth passer-by.)
It's usually less tricky for people to compliment men, because the social context includes both a much lower chance of objectification, and a much lower chance that any objectification would result in violence. There has been a time or two that I was pretty sure a guy complimenting my appearance was hitting on me, but because I'm not an insecure, homophobic douchebag, I didn't mind. (Homophobia: The fear that gay men will treat you the way you treat women.) Outside of the context of systemic violence (and tiresome repetition), the attention was merely flattering.
I'm down a pint of blood, so please forgive me and let me know if I have to clarify or correct anything here.
I guarantee you, 100%, that the happy-to-see-me response is not because I'm some sexy, confident, alpha-male beast (whose stylized silver ring on the wrong hand does not much resemble a wedding band, though it is). Honestly, I feel, at heart, like a shy, awkward person who has practiced being nice to people enough to form a habit strong enough to overcome my introversion.
A compliment can make someone's day, or week. Complimenting someone's work is particularly pleasing: People put a lot of time and effort into getting good at things; appreciation of the results is rewarding.
Complimenting someone's appearance can be nice, but it comes with a couple of caveats. The first is that a person's appearance is much less under their own control than their work is, and so pride in appearance is not nearly as meaningful. The second is that it can come off as creepy and even threatening if the context suggests a possibility that the complimenter is aiming to get something in return, or is objectifying the recipient.
Hint: This creepy context usually means a man complimenting the appearance of a woman who is engaged in any activity at all other than actively trying to meet men. ("If you think women are crazy, you’ve never had a dude go from hitting on you to literally threatening to kill you in the time it takes you to say, 'no thanks'." - Kendra Wells.) A man's peaceful intentions alone cannot change this: Assuming she's not a mind reader (she's not), a sufficiently experienced woman's perception of the context (in which men's desire for and objectification of women encourages subhuman treatment including violence) is the same either way. There are workarounds for this: A female acquaintance of mine was quite pleased when a man said, "Excuse me, I just wanted to let you know that you are very beautiful," and then crossed the road and walked away before she could respond. His behavior clarified that he wasn't seeking anything from her, which allowed her to receive the compliment without suspicion.
When my wife and I are out, she's the one who delivers the well received compliments on someone's stunning hair, eyes, or dress. I don't even try. Though if I had to, I'd probably start with, "We just wanted to let you know..." In public, and establishing our existing relationship with the word "we," I doubt anyone would read desirous intentions into it.
Getting farther into speculation: I don't attend fandom conventions, but I love the costume photos and videos. If I were there in person, and wanted to compliment a woman's costume, I suspect that (if the costume is not highly covering) "I love your outfit!" could be interpreted as, "I love how you're showing off your body with that outfit! Thank you for enabling me to objectify you!" So I might instead try, "Great work on that outfit! It must have taken countless hours!" See that? I switched it from complimenting their appearance to complimenting their work, and clarifying my focus on their costume rather than their body. People familiar with convention etiquette: Am I on track here? Is there a better way to do it? (Edited: The original "better version" was phrased as a question rather than a statement, which Beth caught. A question demands time and attention, neither of which you are entitled to, and a question will also be wearying when asked by every fifth passer-by.)
It's usually less tricky for people to compliment men, because the social context includes both a much lower chance of objectification, and a much lower chance that any objectification would result in violence. There has been a time or two that I was pretty sure a guy complimenting my appearance was hitting on me, but because I'm not an insecure, homophobic douchebag, I didn't mind. (Homophobia: The fear that gay men will treat you the way you treat women.) Outside of the context of systemic violence (and tiresome repetition), the attention was merely flattering.
I'm down a pint of blood, so please forgive me and let me know if I have to clarify or correct anything here.
Religion as Fandom
Feb. 19th, 2016 03:10 pmI have a theory. It involves two ideas:
1. Religious people are not as irrational as they give themselves credit for.
2. Going to church is a lot like going to Harry Potter Fan Club* meetings (with a few key differences).
* I wrote this a long time ago. Because J.K.R. is a hateful transphobe, antisemite, racist, and also plagiarist, my modern writing avoids using her books as examples.
Before I explain the theory, I have to ask the question that the theory purports to explain.
( Disclaimer and explanation for religious people. No offense intended. )
( The question, and some inadequate answers. )
( The theory. )
1. Religious people are not as irrational as they give themselves credit for.
2. Going to church is a lot like going to Harry Potter Fan Club* meetings (with a few key differences).
* I wrote this a long time ago. Because J.K.R. is a hateful transphobe, antisemite, racist, and also plagiarist, my modern writing avoids using her books as examples.
Before I explain the theory, I have to ask the question that the theory purports to explain.
( Disclaimer and explanation for religious people. No offense intended. )
( The question, and some inadequate answers. )
( The theory. )
Self-worth and intellectuals
Jan. 25th, 2016 01:04 pmA long time ago, a friend told me that his young niece had just received an $800 fur coat (that's $1250 in today's dollars) as a gift from her parents, and that her reaction was to complain that it wasn't expensive enough. We both took this as a clear sign that she was absurdly spoiled: What child is so lavished upon, so showered with riches, that an $800 fur coat does not meet her expectations?
I now think that we were wrong. (Granted, the act of giving that coat was itself spoiling.) Her reaction was motivated not by her expectations, but by a desire to prop up her self-image. People who have no real concept of self-worth often try to raise themselves up by placing things beneath them. (I suspect that this relates to the insane popularity games that schoolchildren play: Picking on or ostracizing someone indicates that they are beneath you, and by some social version of Newton's third law of motion, putting them down raises you up.) The price of the fur coat enabled this child (so she thought) to show her worth by declaring it beneath her. The more expensive, the better it was for this purpose. She is an adult now, and likely, she has since learned to value people by their actions, by the happiness and well-being that they create and/or preserve, or by any measure at all other than what they don't like.
An even longer time ago, my oldest friend shared a quote with me: "My definition of an intellectual is someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger." (If you're younger, substitute "'Hey Beautiful' without thinking of "The Big Bang Theory'" (and imagine that "Hey Beautiful" was written by Tchaikovsky).) We were kids, and took it as amusing and possibly accurate. More recently, I have come to regard the quote's sentiment as revealing the same pathos displayed by the niece: Without a schema for understanding one's own worth, even an adult may attempt to create it by placing him- or herself "above" popular culture. (Though I think that doesn't describe "intellectuals" so much as "hipsters" (and I'm not even sure about them).) A web search turned up the quote's author, comedian Billy Connolly. This reassured me, for I had feared that, despite its tongue-in-cheek nature, the quote had been meant in earnest. There are people like that, but at least its author was not one of them.
As an aside, I no longer know what an "intellectual" is. I think I had some idea of it when I was a child: An intellectual might study "pure" (as opposed to applied) math and science, or philosophy, and engage in acts of purely intellectual pleasure. But as I've grown up, I've had decreasing regard for the idea that what is nebulously termed "intelligence" correlates to anything at all other than the ability to learn quickly. My martial arts class challenges me intellectually more (and more engagingly) than any college course did. Applying science to the real world yields far more interesting puzzles (and revelations) than pushing numbers around with a pencil (while disregarding friction and air resistance) does. And for fuck's sake, playing chess just means that you haven't found something better to do with your time. (Yes, I was in my high school's chess club. Shut up.)
For me, all that's left of the idea of the "intellectual" is the presentation: Something like Brian from "Family Guy," whose affectations of culture and intellect mask the fact that he's no smarter than average. Given that, I can hardly imagine how the term "pseudointellectual" can mean anything at all. I mean, if you're claiming an image, whether it's "goth" or "steampunk" or "intellectual," who has the authority to call you a poser? Some pitiable schmuck who claims the same image, trying desperately to establish that you are beneath them?
I now think that we were wrong. (Granted, the act of giving that coat was itself spoiling.) Her reaction was motivated not by her expectations, but by a desire to prop up her self-image. People who have no real concept of self-worth often try to raise themselves up by placing things beneath them. (I suspect that this relates to the insane popularity games that schoolchildren play: Picking on or ostracizing someone indicates that they are beneath you, and by some social version of Newton's third law of motion, putting them down raises you up.) The price of the fur coat enabled this child (so she thought) to show her worth by declaring it beneath her. The more expensive, the better it was for this purpose. She is an adult now, and likely, she has since learned to value people by their actions, by the happiness and well-being that they create and/or preserve, or by any measure at all other than what they don't like.
An even longer time ago, my oldest friend shared a quote with me: "My definition of an intellectual is someone who can listen to the William Tell Overture without thinking of the Lone Ranger." (If you're younger, substitute "'Hey Beautiful' without thinking of "The Big Bang Theory'" (and imagine that "Hey Beautiful" was written by Tchaikovsky).) We were kids, and took it as amusing and possibly accurate. More recently, I have come to regard the quote's sentiment as revealing the same pathos displayed by the niece: Without a schema for understanding one's own worth, even an adult may attempt to create it by placing him- or herself "above" popular culture. (Though I think that doesn't describe "intellectuals" so much as "hipsters" (and I'm not even sure about them).) A web search turned up the quote's author, comedian Billy Connolly. This reassured me, for I had feared that, despite its tongue-in-cheek nature, the quote had been meant in earnest. There are people like that, but at least its author was not one of them.
As an aside, I no longer know what an "intellectual" is. I think I had some idea of it when I was a child: An intellectual might study "pure" (as opposed to applied) math and science, or philosophy, and engage in acts of purely intellectual pleasure. But as I've grown up, I've had decreasing regard for the idea that what is nebulously termed "intelligence" correlates to anything at all other than the ability to learn quickly. My martial arts class challenges me intellectually more (and more engagingly) than any college course did. Applying science to the real world yields far more interesting puzzles (and revelations) than pushing numbers around with a pencil (while disregarding friction and air resistance) does. And for fuck's sake, playing chess just means that you haven't found something better to do with your time. (Yes, I was in my high school's chess club. Shut up.)
For me, all that's left of the idea of the "intellectual" is the presentation: Something like Brian from "Family Guy," whose affectations of culture and intellect mask the fact that he's no smarter than average. Given that, I can hardly imagine how the term "pseudointellectual" can mean anything at all. I mean, if you're claiming an image, whether it's "goth" or "steampunk" or "intellectual," who has the authority to call you a poser? Some pitiable schmuck who claims the same image, trying desperately to establish that you are beneath them?
Reciprocity pressure
Nov. 15th, 2015 10:24 amThere was an interesting moment of revelation the first time I read Robert Cialdini's Influence: Science and Practice. (Yes, I read it a second time just to take notes. It's that important.) He was explaining reciprocity pressure: When someone does something for you, you feel compelled to do something for them. An extreme example was the (now prohibited) practice of Hare Krishnas giving out flowers in airports. The flower was a gift; they would then ask for, and often receive, a donation. An awful lot of people threw out their flowers afterward. (The H.K.s knew this, and would retrieve them from the trash.) So, many people felt obligated to make a donation, just by receiving a flower that they didn't even want! Another example was an experiment that involved sending holiday cards to strangers. An awful lot sent holiday cards back.
As I was reading this, I was thinking, "Reciprocity pressure doesn't work very well on me. When someone does something for me, I express gratitude, but I don't feel like I have to respond in kind. And I do favors for other people all the time, without expecting anything in return. It's like I'm just immune to this ubiquitous social construct."
Cialdini went on to explain that within families, reciprocity pressure works differently. Rather than "keeping score" with favors and gifts so that nobody feels indebted to anyone else, family members exchange the ongoing willingness and readiness to just drop everything and help each other out whenever necessary.
I read this, and thought, "Wait, that's me! That is exactly how I treat everyone!"
I'm not different because I don't feel reciprocity pressure. I'm different (but surely not unique) because I feel and act as though everyone — all humans (plus a few other animals) — are my family.
As I was reading this, I was thinking, "Reciprocity pressure doesn't work very well on me. When someone does something for me, I express gratitude, but I don't feel like I have to respond in kind. And I do favors for other people all the time, without expecting anything in return. It's like I'm just immune to this ubiquitous social construct."
Cialdini went on to explain that within families, reciprocity pressure works differently. Rather than "keeping score" with favors and gifts so that nobody feels indebted to anyone else, family members exchange the ongoing willingness and readiness to just drop everything and help each other out whenever necessary.
I read this, and thought, "Wait, that's me! That is exactly how I treat everyone!"
I'm not different because I don't feel reciprocity pressure. I'm different (but surely not unique) because I feel and act as though everyone — all humans (plus a few other animals) — are my family.
Reframing "Not all men"
May. 14th, 2015 02:05 pmApologies if it's old news, but here's my take on the "not all men" phenomenon.
We live in a culture in which women have learned, quite rightly, to mistrust men. Men kill women. Men rape women. Men abuse women.
A man who is not abusive or violent may well feel defensive about this mistrust, feeling that he hasn't personally earned it. He might say, "But not all men are like that. I'm a nice guy. I would never do that. I'm not part of the problem."
But if that's your response, then you're part of the problem. The problem isn't you in particular. The problem is that women have good reason to fear men. When you focus the dialogue on yourself, not only are you failing to help, you are actively ignoring that the problem exists at all. By claiming that women have no cause to mistrust you, you're denying the validity of the lifetimes of experience by which they have learned that men are dangerous. And you know what? Their experience in this matter is much greater, and more relevant, than yours is.
If your solution is to quiet women who complain that there's a problem, then you are a huge part of the fucking problem.
You know what you can say next time a woman you've never met before mistrusts you? "I understand and accept your mistrust." Then just think this part silently: "Your experience with assholes has taught you caution. I'm sure it was a dearly bought lesson, and I would not ask you to disregard it."
If you are male, and want to be part of the solution, do a web search, or start here or here. (Comments for other good places to start are welcome.)
We live in a culture in which women have learned, quite rightly, to mistrust men. Men kill women. Men rape women. Men abuse women.
A man who is not abusive or violent may well feel defensive about this mistrust, feeling that he hasn't personally earned it. He might say, "But not all men are like that. I'm a nice guy. I would never do that. I'm not part of the problem."
But if that's your response, then you're part of the problem. The problem isn't you in particular. The problem is that women have good reason to fear men. When you focus the dialogue on yourself, not only are you failing to help, you are actively ignoring that the problem exists at all. By claiming that women have no cause to mistrust you, you're denying the validity of the lifetimes of experience by which they have learned that men are dangerous. And you know what? Their experience in this matter is much greater, and more relevant, than yours is.
If your solution is to quiet women who complain that there's a problem, then you are a huge part of the fucking problem.
You know what you can say next time a woman you've never met before mistrusts you? "I understand and accept your mistrust." Then just think this part silently: "Your experience with assholes has taught you caution. I'm sure it was a dearly bought lesson, and I would not ask you to disregard it."
If you are male, and want to be part of the solution, do a web search, or start here or here. (Comments for other good places to start are welcome.)
Please stop saying "Inspirational".
Mar. 24th, 2015 02:10 pmIt is well past time for able-bodied folks to stop using the word "inspirational" about people who do normal (or even impressive) things despite their disabilities.
This use of the word is offensive. Yes, I *know* that you mean it to be positive, and encouraging, and displaying nothing but appreciation, and that the very idea that you might be insulting or offending people by using it is terribly disconcerting. And yet, the fact that it is offensive is a consistent message that I get from people with disabilities.
(I'm addressing abled people in the second person (at least until the bottom) only because this message is aimed at them, not because I don't expect to have readers with disabilities.)
Before I explain (and don't worry, I will explain thoroughly), let me point out that the fact that, when a member of an oppressed minority asks you to refrain from some behavior or from the use of some word because it is offensive, but you don't understand how it could possibly be offensive, it is your responsibility to respectfully take them at their word, and immediately desist from the offending behavior. It doesn't matter if you meant well, or if you don't think there's any way that the behavior could be offensive, or even if you strongly believe that it shouldn't be offensive. The reason that you and this person disagree is because they have an intimate, profound, first-hand understanding of the subject, and you do not. So don't get defensive about it: Just defer to them, even when you don't understand why.
Back to the topic: Teal Sherer delivers a lovely rant on the word in her web series, "My Gimpy Life," season 1, espisode 3: "Inspirational".
You may want to click that link before you read any farther, because it has the benefit of the buildup and her delivery. (Plus, "My Gimpy Life" is awesome.)
Go ahead; I'll wait.
... You're back? Okay.
She tells off the offenders: "I'm an actress! I didn't come here to be your mascot! 'Oh, you're so inspiring! Such an inspiration.' Do you know how insulting that is? It's like me telling her she's 'so well spoken,' or that you 'could pass for white,' or that this is just a wonderful little feminist Fubu theater company!"
While I do not presume to improve upon Ms. Sherer's work, I will try to make more explicit the issues upon which she touches, for those who hold too much privilege to be able to personally relate to such comparisons.
Imagine that some stranger tells you, "It's really brave of you to go out in public wearing that sweater!" It's obviously an insult... But why? "Brave" is a positive word! It becomes insulting by its implication that this stranger would have expected you to not wear the sweater in public. The word "Brave" manages to backhandedly deliver the insult of low expectations. Just like "inspirational" does. So some person with a disability is doing something fairly normal, like auditioning for a role or practicing martial arts. When you call them "inspirational," you communicate your own low expectations: "I would have thought you'd be sitting quietly at home, but instead, here you are, doing real people stuff! Good for you!"
... Which connects to the fact that praising someone too much for a modest feat is also condescending. You might tell a small child how awesome their macaroni drawing was, but you wouldn't say that to an adult (unless it really was awesome, of course). So don't tell someone how impressed you are by what they've done despite their disability, if you're not genuinely impressed regardless of their disability.
Then there's the "I didn't come here to be your mascot" bit. This person is not engaging in activities in order to inspire you. They are doing it because it's part of their normal life, because they have to do it, because it helps keep them sharp, because it helps keep them in shape, because they enjoy it, or because the alternative is to sit at home and have a really crappy life. None of that has anything to do with you. When you tell them how brave they are, and how that inspires you, you are not only deprecating their real motivations: You are appropriating their situation for yourself. A person with a disability cannot inspire you to go to work despite chronic, debilitating pain and fatigue, or to audition for a role when your legs don't work. To be "inspired" to follow their example is to implicitly claim a comparison between their situation and yours: A comparison that is insultingly dismissive.
That is, unless you have such a disability yourself. It is perfectly okay — even great — for a person with a disability to be inspired (privately or aloud) by another person with a disability. There's no appropriation in this case.
That's my piece. While the broad ideas come from friends (and from Teal Sherer), the voice I have given it is my own. Reactions to the problematic aspects of the word "inspirational" will vary by the individual. That said, privilege is blinding, so I may well have gotten something wrong or missed something important. I will be open to constructive corrections and additions. Heck, would someone in the know care to suggest alternative words or actions (other than the obvious shutting up) for when the urge to say "inspirational" strikes? Thank you.
And thanks for reading.
ETA: My friend Rachel made an important connection of this topic to sexism. She writes:
ETA: Erin Tatum has more to say on the subject here: 7 Reasons to Stop Calling Disabled People Inspirational.
This use of the word is offensive. Yes, I *know* that you mean it to be positive, and encouraging, and displaying nothing but appreciation, and that the very idea that you might be insulting or offending people by using it is terribly disconcerting. And yet, the fact that it is offensive is a consistent message that I get from people with disabilities.
(I'm addressing abled people in the second person (at least until the bottom) only because this message is aimed at them, not because I don't expect to have readers with disabilities.)
Before I explain (and don't worry, I will explain thoroughly), let me point out that the fact that, when a member of an oppressed minority asks you to refrain from some behavior or from the use of some word because it is offensive, but you don't understand how it could possibly be offensive, it is your responsibility to respectfully take them at their word, and immediately desist from the offending behavior. It doesn't matter if you meant well, or if you don't think there's any way that the behavior could be offensive, or even if you strongly believe that it shouldn't be offensive. The reason that you and this person disagree is because they have an intimate, profound, first-hand understanding of the subject, and you do not. So don't get defensive about it: Just defer to them, even when you don't understand why.
Back to the topic: Teal Sherer delivers a lovely rant on the word in her web series, "My Gimpy Life," season 1, espisode 3: "Inspirational".
You may want to click that link before you read any farther, because it has the benefit of the buildup and her delivery. (Plus, "My Gimpy Life" is awesome.)
Go ahead; I'll wait.
... You're back? Okay.
She tells off the offenders: "I'm an actress! I didn't come here to be your mascot! 'Oh, you're so inspiring! Such an inspiration.' Do you know how insulting that is? It's like me telling her she's 'so well spoken,' or that you 'could pass for white,' or that this is just a wonderful little feminist Fubu theater company!"
While I do not presume to improve upon Ms. Sherer's work, I will try to make more explicit the issues upon which she touches, for those who hold too much privilege to be able to personally relate to such comparisons.
Imagine that some stranger tells you, "It's really brave of you to go out in public wearing that sweater!" It's obviously an insult... But why? "Brave" is a positive word! It becomes insulting by its implication that this stranger would have expected you to not wear the sweater in public. The word "Brave" manages to backhandedly deliver the insult of low expectations. Just like "inspirational" does. So some person with a disability is doing something fairly normal, like auditioning for a role or practicing martial arts. When you call them "inspirational," you communicate your own low expectations: "I would have thought you'd be sitting quietly at home, but instead, here you are, doing real people stuff! Good for you!"
... Which connects to the fact that praising someone too much for a modest feat is also condescending. You might tell a small child how awesome their macaroni drawing was, but you wouldn't say that to an adult (unless it really was awesome, of course). So don't tell someone how impressed you are by what they've done despite their disability, if you're not genuinely impressed regardless of their disability.
Then there's the "I didn't come here to be your mascot" bit. This person is not engaging in activities in order to inspire you. They are doing it because it's part of their normal life, because they have to do it, because it helps keep them sharp, because it helps keep them in shape, because they enjoy it, or because the alternative is to sit at home and have a really crappy life. None of that has anything to do with you. When you tell them how brave they are, and how that inspires you, you are not only deprecating their real motivations: You are appropriating their situation for yourself. A person with a disability cannot inspire you to go to work despite chronic, debilitating pain and fatigue, or to audition for a role when your legs don't work. To be "inspired" to follow their example is to implicitly claim a comparison between their situation and yours: A comparison that is insultingly dismissive.
That is, unless you have such a disability yourself. It is perfectly okay — even great — for a person with a disability to be inspired (privately or aloud) by another person with a disability. There's no appropriation in this case.
That's my piece. While the broad ideas come from friends (and from Teal Sherer), the voice I have given it is my own. Reactions to the problematic aspects of the word "inspirational" will vary by the individual. That said, privilege is blinding, so I may well have gotten something wrong or missed something important. I will be open to constructive corrections and additions. Heck, would someone in the know care to suggest alternative words or actions (other than the obvious shutting up) for when the urge to say "inspirational" strikes? Thank you.
And thanks for reading.
ETA: My friend Rachel made an important connection of this topic to sexism. She writes:
Yes. This is very much like the sexism I faced in childhood. It generally took the form of people telling me how wonderful it was to see a girl who was so rational or who was good at science or so forth. Very clearly sending the message that they wouldn't expect that from a girl, that I was weird for being this way, and that it was at odds with me being feminine. They intended to compliment and encourage me, but it was a terrible thing to do.
I don't usually get the inspiring stuff, now that I'm disabled, but I do now and then. And it often seems that I am "inspiring" for ... existing? For continuing to live. For doing basic life maintenance. Which sends the message that... you expected me to die. Thanks a lot.
ETA: Erin Tatum has more to say on the subject here: 7 Reasons to Stop Calling Disabled People Inspirational.
The Lack of Reason for God (Summary)
Dec. 30th, 2014 10:03 pmThe Reason For God, by Timothy Keller, is a work of Christian apologetics. It claims to present a case for god and for Christianity, using reason and logic to appeal to skeptics. It is an example of a class of books that achieve unwarranted sales by virtue of churchgoers buying many copies each, to hand out to unbelievers so that they might be converted. I was one such recipient.
Essentially, these sales constitute a scam. The reasoning presented by the book is so thoroughly and consistently unsound that it cannot appeal to anyone who does not already hold the views of the author. Those buying the book in hopes of winning converts have spent their money (and time) in vain.
I had begun to dissect the logic of the book when I first received it, but quickly lost interest due to the lack of challenge this presented. More recently, a Christian friend of mine began reading the book, and having problems with it. So we began taking notes, and meeting weekly to discuss each chapter. One problem was that Keller's reasoning process was often obscure: There were several points where it was not easy to discern how Keller had intended one idea to support an earlier or later one. The other problem involved the format of the first half of the book: In each chapter, Keller would introduce an objection either to theism or to Christianity in particular, then spend the rest of the chapter trying to argue against that objection. His arguments were so weak (and sometimes incomprehensible) that the still viable objections were pushing my friend toward atheism. I was able to clarify some of the arguments, but even then, they gained no credibility. Keller's system backfired, and in consequence of reading this book, my friend has become more solidly agnostic.
Over the past few months, I have published my notes on the book in serial form. You can find "The Lack of Reason For God" collected here:
Essentially, these sales constitute a scam. The reasoning presented by the book is so thoroughly and consistently unsound that it cannot appeal to anyone who does not already hold the views of the author. Those buying the book in hopes of winning converts have spent their money (and time) in vain.
I had begun to dissect the logic of the book when I first received it, but quickly lost interest due to the lack of challenge this presented. More recently, a Christian friend of mine began reading the book, and having problems with it. So we began taking notes, and meeting weekly to discuss each chapter. One problem was that Keller's reasoning process was often obscure: There were several points where it was not easy to discern how Keller had intended one idea to support an earlier or later one. The other problem involved the format of the first half of the book: In each chapter, Keller would introduce an objection either to theism or to Christianity in particular, then spend the rest of the chapter trying to argue against that objection. His arguments were so weak (and sometimes incomprehensible) that the still viable objections were pushing my friend toward atheism. I was able to clarify some of the arguments, but even then, they gained no credibility. Keller's system backfired, and in consequence of reading this book, my friend has become more solidly agnostic.
Over the past few months, I have published my notes on the book in serial form. You can find "The Lack of Reason For God" collected here:
- Introduction
- Chapter 1: The divisiveness of Christianity.
- Chapter 2: Why does god allow evil?
- Chapter 3: Christianity's restrictions on intellectual freedom.
- Chapter 4: Injustice in the name of Christianity.
- Chapter 5: A loving god sends people to Hell.
- Chapter 6: The conflict between science and Christianity.
- Chapter 7: Can you take the Bible literally?
- Intermission: A switch from arguing against skepticism to arguing for theism and Christianity. Also bad epistemology.
- Chapter 8: Evidence for the existence of god.
- Chapter 9: Atheists really believe in god.
- Chapter 10: Building one's identity without god.
- Chapter 11: Salvation through god's grace rather than good works.
- Chapter 12: The crucifixion.
- Chapter 13: The resurrection.
- Chapter 14: The holy trinity.
- Epilogue: Conversion.
This post, collecting the entries, would be a suitable place to comment on the project as a whole, on the book, or even on the field of Christian apologetics. However, if you are looking for a religion debate with a stranger, look elsewhere. (This includes you, Timothy Keller. Straw man arguments make baby Jesus cry.) If you're a friend of mine looking for a religion debate, I'm game, and we can surely find a better venue than the comments section. - Chapter 5: A loving god sends people to Hell.
Lately, people (thankfully not too many) have been popping up in my social media streams, complaining about protesters, activists, and all the other random folks who take stands against police brutality, against racism, and against wanton mass murder.
It is you, the "Shut up about the police already!" folks whom I would like to address. Imagine, for a moment, that your best friend's child was recently murdered. A month later, they make a Facebook post about how they're struggling with the shock and grief. You respond, "Whatever. It's just a kid. They probably deserved it anyway. Get over it already and stop complaining."
You wouldn't do that, would you? Even if you were so emotionally messed up that you didn't care one bit about the kid or the murder, and were sick of hearing about it, you would still know better than to respond that way. Right?
And yet that's what you're doing. White people are finally noticing things that people of color knew all along: That many police officers are dangerous sociopaths who would sooner club you or put a bullet in you than give you the time of day. I'm not going to ask you to care. You'll care about what you care about, and if you don't give a shit about police brutality because it disproportionately affects ethnicities that aren't yours, and it doesn't bother you that HUMANS are being murdered on a regular basis by the people whose job it is to protect them, then I won't be able to change your mind.
But I will ask you to recognize that those of us who value human lives are grieving. And as long as the murders continue, the grief cannot stop. The illusion that we live in a civilized society is crumbling by the day. I have friends -- good people, people whom I love and would do anything for -- who could at any time be murdered by the police because of the color of their skin. That thought is terrifying and heartbreaking.
Don't tell me that mass murder fueled by systemic racism is not a problem, or that we should shut up about it. Whether you think it or not, for the same reason you wouldn't treat your hypothetical, grieving friend insensitively, you should know better than to say this out loud.
Don't tell me about looters. Protesters in Ferguson have been protecting stores from looters, and the police in Ferguson have been assaulting protesters. So whose side are the police on?
Don't tell me that some police officers are good, and risk their lives. Those can be counted on one hand because they get driven out, and they don't excuse murder. You're just changing the subject.
The times are changing. The first step in fixing the problem is recognizing that we have a problem, and a lot of people are finally doing that. If you want to keep your eyes closed, cover your ears, plug your nose, and pretend that we aren't living in a barbaric police state that terrorizes a large portion of its own population, go for it. Life with your head in the sand is pleasant; I understand that. But don't get in the way of the good people, the people striving for justice, the people who know that equality requires more than a pretense at colorblindness, the people who want to change the world for the better. We have work to do, to make the world a better place, and we have bigger fish to fry than you pissants who just want to hold us back for the sake of your comfortable illusions and your racist status quo.
It is you, the "Shut up about the police already!" folks whom I would like to address. Imagine, for a moment, that your best friend's child was recently murdered. A month later, they make a Facebook post about how they're struggling with the shock and grief. You respond, "Whatever. It's just a kid. They probably deserved it anyway. Get over it already and stop complaining."
You wouldn't do that, would you? Even if you were so emotionally messed up that you didn't care one bit about the kid or the murder, and were sick of hearing about it, you would still know better than to respond that way. Right?
And yet that's what you're doing. White people are finally noticing things that people of color knew all along: That many police officers are dangerous sociopaths who would sooner club you or put a bullet in you than give you the time of day. I'm not going to ask you to care. You'll care about what you care about, and if you don't give a shit about police brutality because it disproportionately affects ethnicities that aren't yours, and it doesn't bother you that HUMANS are being murdered on a regular basis by the people whose job it is to protect them, then I won't be able to change your mind.
But I will ask you to recognize that those of us who value human lives are grieving. And as long as the murders continue, the grief cannot stop. The illusion that we live in a civilized society is crumbling by the day. I have friends -- good people, people whom I love and would do anything for -- who could at any time be murdered by the police because of the color of their skin. That thought is terrifying and heartbreaking.
Don't tell me that mass murder fueled by systemic racism is not a problem, or that we should shut up about it. Whether you think it or not, for the same reason you wouldn't treat your hypothetical, grieving friend insensitively, you should know better than to say this out loud.
Don't tell me about looters. Protesters in Ferguson have been protecting stores from looters, and the police in Ferguson have been assaulting protesters. So whose side are the police on?
Don't tell me that some police officers are good, and risk their lives. Those can be counted on one hand because they get driven out, and they don't excuse murder. You're just changing the subject.
The times are changing. The first step in fixing the problem is recognizing that we have a problem, and a lot of people are finally doing that. If you want to keep your eyes closed, cover your ears, plug your nose, and pretend that we aren't living in a barbaric police state that terrorizes a large portion of its own population, go for it. Life with your head in the sand is pleasant; I understand that. But don't get in the way of the good people, the people striving for justice, the people who know that equality requires more than a pretense at colorblindness, the people who want to change the world for the better. We have work to do, to make the world a better place, and we have bigger fish to fry than you pissants who just want to hold us back for the sake of your comfortable illusions and your racist status quo.
Men and feminism
Sep. 22nd, 2014 01:48 amThis is the comment I just posted on the video of Emma Watson's speech to the U.N., inviting men to join in the struggle for equal rights:
Men who believe in equality have an opportunity and an obligation to speak up, to make it harder for sexists to dismiss feminism. I am a man who believes that women are human beings, and should be afforded all the dignity and rights thereof. I am a feminist. (I say this not for pride, but simply with the understanding that to be otherwise would be shameful.)
Men who believe in equality have an opportunity and an obligation to speak up, to make it harder for sexists to dismiss feminism. I am a man who believes that women are human beings, and should be afforded all the dignity and rights thereof. I am a feminist. (I say this not for pride, but simply with the understanding that to be otherwise would be shameful.)
Rebuttal to debunking, or vice versa.
Dec. 29th, 2013 12:11 amRecently, I quoted Anita Sarkeesian in an e-mail. A friend of mine wrote back, saying (in short) that he thought she was full of it, and that I should expose myself to some of the materials that purported to debunk her video series, "Damsel in Distress: Tropes vs. Women in Video Games". I had not sought these out before (though I had gathered that there was controversy), simply in the spirit of "Don't read the comments if you want to keep your faith in humanity." I had figured that those who opposed these well documented and educational feminist videos were simply misogynist creeps who perceived Sarkeesian as attacking their favorite video games. But if my friend, an intelligent and experienced gamer, was on their side, then I'd better see what they had to say.
So I clicked the link he gave me, with an open mind.
It was like walking into a heap of pig manure with an open mouth.
I took notes as I watched, so that I could send my friend a rebuttal of this rebuttal video. ( It's behind the cut. )
My friend's response was brief and disappointing.
I'd like to know what my other friends, especially my gamer friends and female friends, and most especially my female gamer friends, have to say on the subject. Should I pay any further attention to the "controversy" over these videos? Is there any rational debate out there that I should check out? Is there something that I have gotten very wrong (or very right)?
I'm making this post public in case it is needed. Abuse and/or trolling will be unceremoniously deleted.
So I clicked the link he gave me, with an open mind.
It was like walking into a heap of pig manure with an open mouth.
I took notes as I watched, so that I could send my friend a rebuttal of this rebuttal video. ( It's behind the cut. )
My friend's response was brief and disappointing.
I'd like to know what my other friends, especially my gamer friends and female friends, and most especially my female gamer friends, have to say on the subject. Should I pay any further attention to the "controversy" over these videos? Is there any rational debate out there that I should check out? Is there something that I have gotten very wrong (or very right)?
I'm making this post public in case it is needed. Abuse and/or trolling will be unceremoniously deleted.
This is something that I've been meaning to write for a while. I finally got around to it today:
Fixing Nice Guys, "Nice Guys," and the Friend Zone: A view from the cross-fire.
In other news...
How to break a physicist fantasy gamer's brain: Tell them that they have encountered a quark elemental.
Fixing Nice Guys, "Nice Guys," and the Friend Zone: A view from the cross-fire.
In other news...
How to break a physicist fantasy gamer's brain: Tell them that they have encountered a quark elemental.
What defines a kung fu movie?
Jul. 13th, 2010 04:07 pm"Do you like kung fu movies?"
"I don't know."
"Wanna find out?"
"Sure!"
So I gave her a selection of old classics and modern movies. She likes Jet Li, so she picked "Kiss of the Dragon". But afterward, I felt like we hadn't seen a kung fu movie. We had merely seen a good action movie with several kung fu sequences.
So what makes a kung fu movie a kung fu movie? My thoughts, sequentially:
While the last definition is simple, it seems kind of... Graceless? And perhaps vague enough to include things that I might not call kung fu movies. Maybe a kung fu movie is like poison ivy: You can describe the typical characteristics, but they can vary widely in individual examples. And what constitutes "most"? What kind of definition is that? ("Kiss of the Dragon" had plenty of martial arts, but also lots of stunts, gunplay and hitting people with improvised weapons. Plus the gimmicky deus ex machina. And Jet Li is so fast and smooth at kung fu that it comes off as a bit casual and downplayed. (Going in now. Yeah, there happen to be armed guards in the way. So what?))
Any thoughts?
Gratuitous links: Eight historic symbols that mean the opposite of what you think. (Thanks, Seamus and![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cluegirl!)
Conan the Barbarian: The Musical (Thanks, Tom!)
I'm Comic Sans, Asshole. (Thanks,jnala!)
"I don't know."
"Wanna find out?"
"Sure!"
So I gave her a selection of old classics and modern movies. She likes Jet Li, so she picked "Kiss of the Dragon". But afterward, I felt like we hadn't seen a kung fu movie. We had merely seen a good action movie with several kung fu sequences.
So what makes a kung fu movie a kung fu movie? My thoughts, sequentially:
- As an integral part of the plot, the star learns kung fu (or karate, jeet kun do, capoeira, whatever; I'm not picky).
- A mysterious old teacher pushes the young star through rigorous training in secret techniques with which he will avenge himself upon the antagonists who earlier kicked his ass / killed his father / dishonored his school. There are cool training sequences with inspiring music. But wait, there are some exceptions.
- The movie is about martial arts.
- Whose kung fu is the best? Okay, this covers Bruce Lee's "The Chinese Connection" (sort of), Jackie Chan's "Legend of the Drunken Master" and Jet Li's "Fearless". The lead characters are already badasses (or the learning is off-screen). If they ever lose a battle after childhood, it's due to external circumstances (e.g., rigged fight), alcohol or (occasionally) lack of the "determined look that wins battles". But that still leaves out some important stuff.
- Most of the action scenes are martial arts. The final showdown is a protracted martial arts battle.
- This now covers some movies without which a kung fu movie collection would be incomplete. The world's best martial artist (who somehow starts the movie with no reputation whatsoever) defeats, e.g., the crime syndicate (Bruce Lee's "Return of the Dragon" or Chuck Norris' "An Eye for an Eye"). (And this properly excludes "Kiss of the Dragon," which fits neither condition.)
- Most of the action scenes are martial arts.
- That previous one is pretty vague. And yet, what about Jet Li's "Hero," or Bruce Lee's "Game of Death," in which the final showdown wasn't a battle at all? ("Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" also lacks the protracted final showdown, though it fits the second definition.)
While the last definition is simple, it seems kind of... Graceless? And perhaps vague enough to include things that I might not call kung fu movies. Maybe a kung fu movie is like poison ivy: You can describe the typical characteristics, but they can vary widely in individual examples. And what constitutes "most"? What kind of definition is that? ("Kiss of the Dragon" had plenty of martial arts, but also lots of stunts, gunplay and hitting people with improvised weapons. Plus the gimmicky deus ex machina. And Jet Li is so fast and smooth at kung fu that it comes off as a bit casual and downplayed. (Going in now. Yeah, there happen to be armed guards in the way. So what?))
Any thoughts?
Gratuitous links: Eight historic symbols that mean the opposite of what you think. (Thanks, Seamus and
cluegirl!)Conan the Barbarian: The Musical (Thanks, Tom!)
I'm Comic Sans, Asshole. (Thanks,
jnala!)I've made a plain English version of my previous essay, incorporating some context as well.
Here it is.
Here it is.
Act Utilitarianism and Promise Keeping
May. 25th, 2009 12:01 amThese wack-ass bitches who try to put down utilitarianism never learn, do they? You can't keep a good philosophy down! Y'all best step off, ‘cause Joe Levy is stepping up to the plate to pinch-hit for my homie, J.S. Mill.
Mill couldn't be bothered to defend utilitarianism from the likes of you. You know why? ‘Cause you got nothin'! You can't touch the Big U!
But Mill's dead, and y'all's runnin' around like you own the place: Talking trash, pointin' out so-called "flaws" and "inadequacies". Why you so smug? Someone gonna put you in your place, and that someone is me!
Today, we gonna bust a myth: ( This damn fool idea that you can't trust us utilitarian homies to keep their word! )
In yo' face, muthafucka. R.I.P.
Mill couldn't be bothered to defend utilitarianism from the likes of you. You know why? ‘Cause you got nothin'! You can't touch the Big U!
But Mill's dead, and y'all's runnin' around like you own the place: Talking trash, pointin' out so-called "flaws" and "inadequacies". Why you so smug? Someone gonna put you in your place, and that someone is me!
Today, we gonna bust a myth: ( This damn fool idea that you can't trust us utilitarian homies to keep their word! )
In yo' face, muthafucka. R.I.P.
