Sorry for the late post, yesterday was for a Star Wars Marathon and chilli. Yeah you jealous.
Have you ever flipped through a magazine like Cosmopolitan? I'm not gonna lie, it's hilarious. Terrible, but hilarious. It's fairly common knowledge that they're designed to make the average early twenties through to early thirties feel insecure and shitty about themselves, but then again, it's not as if it's hard. Society does that anyway. These women's magazines though, they take it to the next level, concentrating as many insecurity-causing half facts and airbrushed models as possible into the ridiculous number of pages they have (a decent portion of them are ads for perfume and hair colour... women stink and are off-coloured apparently. Never thought so myself, but what do I know, I'm not a cosmetologist), all the while putting on this faux-playful, serious-but-not-quite air. It's just like Cyndi Lauper said: Girls just wanna have fun so they can cover up their crippling insecurities and present an air of confidence and please their man. Those are the lyrics, right?
I had the pleasure of flipping through a copy of Cosmopolitan from 2008 yesterday. Maybe it's a case of genders communicating in different ways, but I don't understand the appeal. Case in point: 4 pages dedicated to quizzes, each quiz with less than eight 3-part multiple choice questions, designed to tell you how confident you are with friends, in yourself, with new partners and in bed. Here's the kicker though, no matter what you scored, the result could basically be boiled down to the same thing: It's cool that you're yourself, even though it may be alienating people. It's a tactical strike that ensures every reader who's gullible enough to buy this crap feels at least a little bit crappy about themselves. Another section, delightfully entitled "Manscripts," is basically a transcript of Hamiash Blake and two friends chatting at a pub. Scintillating. Of course, the article header says something like "Ever wonder what guys talk about at the pub? We lift the lid on secret man-talk!" as if all men are a secret cabal of conspiracy theorists and perverts. That said, to get to the heart of the article, what Hamish Blake discovered over the course of (I think it was) three hours at the pub is that guys talk about sex, work and the minutiae of first world life. Wow, thanks Hamish. Of course, it was carefully edited to include just a few jabs at women in general, this time about bowel movements and labial grooming. If the economy ran on women feeling like shit about themselves, we'd all be living in solid gold houses.
I'm almost certain I could excel as a writer for women's magazines, following the simple formula: No-one knows everything and everyone has insecurities, so providing "facts" that play to insecurities is addictive and makes people feel like shit. It's a winning combination. Case in point, spot the fake article:
"Ten Things He's Thinking But Not Saying"
"Why Sex Is Ruining Your Relationship"
"Forget Fake Tan, The Sun Is The One"
"Seven Special Treats For Him This Valentines Day"
"Frisky Festive! Sample This Season's Yule-Tide Lingerie"
The sad part? There is no answer, they're all fake. Not to say they couldn't be written, it'd be easy as hell. First one? Make up some shit about how eyes linger on body parts that are getting flabby. Second? Sex can take away intimacy from relationship and drive him into the arms of another woman. Or drugs, who cares. Third? That's easy, even colouration and vitamin D. Fourth one, make up some silly names for old positions and be out in time for lunch. The fifth one would just be a fun afternoon on Photoshop. I'd feel a little bad about how much disdain I have for the editors, writers and readers of women's magazines if it wasn't completely and totally justified.
You'd think after all this, I'd be anti-women's magazines, but you couldn't be more wrong. There's a sucker born every minute and at least half of them are female, so why not cash in on how crappy they feel? It's not as if they're gonna feel better any time soon.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Monday, December 19, 2011
Yule Tide Thoughts on the Season.
Christmas is weird, when you ponder just how much sway it has over everyone in Australia. The religious, the secular, the rich and the poor... it weighs on everyone's mind in one way or another. The thing is, as such a young nation with such a melting pot of cultures, the Christmas we have in Australia is less a tradition and more this weird, annual fantasy we create some time near the end of the year. Consider some of the idiosyncrasies of the Australian Christmas.
We use the symbols of pine tress and snow as an indicator of the festive season during Australian summer. It's absolutely bonkers, it makes no sense. As a hold over from English (and to some extent, American) festive seasons, I understand why they're used, but it's more the juxtaposition of this one fantasy against this almost opposite reality. Snow is on the TV but we're lazing around in board shorts and thongs. Evergreen pines are everywhere but the lawn is brown. In my experience, Australian "festivity" is less about an ongoing sense of spirituality or peace and more about excitement for a day off or a day on the piss. In a way, it makes sense though; the ads and symbols all around us don't reinforce any feelings we're already having, they're just reminding us that a party is coming.
The idea of the Christmas roast is weird as well. In the UK, you're celebrating when it's cold, you're eating a hearty, filling hot roast while it's dark and cold outside. The roast meat makes sense. But over here? We're having Christmas lunch in the bright, sunny and hot afternoon. Cold prawns becoming traditional, that I understand. It makes sense. I'd understand stuff like cold seafood, fresh fruit, salads, cold drinks... but roasts and custard and egg nog and Christmas Pudding? It may be traditional but it's also completely inappropriate given the season, not the "season."
I won't get started on Christmas carols but seriously, they are so goddamn awful. Christmas music blows.
All that said, I'm a big fan of December 25th and the few days around it. I generally have a lot of fun. The Santas and snow and baubles and shitty music, I could do without, but friends, family, good food, good drink and shallow materialism are great, so any day that brings a lot of them is fine by me.
We use the symbols of pine tress and snow as an indicator of the festive season during Australian summer. It's absolutely bonkers, it makes no sense. As a hold over from English (and to some extent, American) festive seasons, I understand why they're used, but it's more the juxtaposition of this one fantasy against this almost opposite reality. Snow is on the TV but we're lazing around in board shorts and thongs. Evergreen pines are everywhere but the lawn is brown. In my experience, Australian "festivity" is less about an ongoing sense of spirituality or peace and more about excitement for a day off or a day on the piss. In a way, it makes sense though; the ads and symbols all around us don't reinforce any feelings we're already having, they're just reminding us that a party is coming.
The idea of the Christmas roast is weird as well. In the UK, you're celebrating when it's cold, you're eating a hearty, filling hot roast while it's dark and cold outside. The roast meat makes sense. But over here? We're having Christmas lunch in the bright, sunny and hot afternoon. Cold prawns becoming traditional, that I understand. It makes sense. I'd understand stuff like cold seafood, fresh fruit, salads, cold drinks... but roasts and custard and egg nog and Christmas Pudding? It may be traditional but it's also completely inappropriate given the season, not the "season."
I won't get started on Christmas carols but seriously, they are so goddamn awful. Christmas music blows.
All that said, I'm a big fan of December 25th and the few days around it. I generally have a lot of fun. The Santas and snow and baubles and shitty music, I could do without, but friends, family, good food, good drink and shallow materialism are great, so any day that brings a lot of them is fine by me.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
On Feminine Empowerment
OK, so first of all, apologies for missing last week and posting late this week. I have an excuse... let's go with "work."
Second, laying out my bona fides here: I'm not a feminist, by default. I'm a dude, I can't really be a proper feminist. I'm a feminist sympathiser though, and I find a lot of their theories make sense. I'm nowhere near as well read as I should be and I'm nowhere near the radical end of the spectrum, but I won't lie, I'm closer to that side than I am to the weird, faux-feminist lipstick thing. I just don't understand how modern "empowerment" is even remotely empowering. To clarify:
1) How is Sasha Grey (or any pornstar) a symbol of feminist empowerment? I understand that there was a brief period in the sixties when certain feminists were fans of Playboy magazine for presenting a new, liberated female sexuality, but even then, it's kinda flawed. Fast-forward to modern hardcore pornography and it's the same flawed logic a hundredfold. Yes, I agree that women should have the same freedom to be sexual and express their sexuality as men have and yes, I think that the whole "a man is a player, a woman is a slut" ideal is just plain stupid. You can't advocate equality on one hand then hold women to this arbitrary standard of sexual "purity" on the other. The door swings both ways; if men and women are to be truly equal, there's no reason why a woman can't have sex with as many (or as few) men or women (or otherwise, provided the parties consent) as they like. That said, modern pornography isn't about sexual freedom, it's a male domination fantasy. Seriously, just watch some porn, I guarantee it'll feature at least one scene where the woman gazes reverently at the man's penis like it's work of art, there'll be at least one scene where the man will say "you like that?" and the woman will make some response like she's in the absolute throes of orgasmic pleasure because, oh I don't know, she has two penises in her arse. The vast majority of pornography is made under the pretense that women are to be used for male satisfaction, and I have not yet found any (admittedly I haven't really been looking) where it's the reverse. Pornstars, particularly ones in the public eye like Sasha Grey or Bree Olsen, don't present a new, aggressive take on female sexuality as much as they propagate a penis worship fantasy.
2) I don't think any sexual act is inherently sexist but it's all context dependent. I've heard the argument presented that stuff like fellatio, man on woman anal sex and even penetrative vaginal sex are all sexist weapons that hamstring female sexual freedoms, but I don't buy this so much, again because the door swings both ways. Humans aren't robots, sex isn't a transaction. It can involve a number of partners of any gender, its definition isn't so clear cut. The point is, if anyone involved in the activity derives pleasure from a certain action and everyone else involved is cool with it, I don't see the harm. Comfort and consent, guys. Comfort and consent. The issue comes out of, once again, expectation that women should act a certain way and do certain things. A woman giving a man a blowjob isn't necessarily sexist, but a man expecting her to, getting annoyed when she doesn't and acting as if she's doing something wrong for not, that is sexist. I had an ex who was particularly uncomfortable with the whole idea of oral sex, both giving and receiving, so we just never did it. It's not that she was wrong, of course she wasn't. She was uncomfortable with the idea and to insist upon it would have made her even less comfortable, so it's not as if she could ever properly consent to it. Prostitution is a bit sticky here, because it blurs the lines of what consent is, but my incredibly simplistic view on the issue is: Trafficked women, drugs addicts, single parents living in poverty and the mentally handicapped do not have the proper tools to consider their situation, so I'd say to have sex for money with one of the mentioned would be forced. People who are of sound mind, i.e. aren't having sex for money for any reason other than their own desire to are not being forced. Please feel free to tear that apart if you find it flawed.
3) Makeup and revealing clothes... well, this wouldn't be an issue if men and women did it to equal measure, would it? The problem lies in the asymmetry. Personally, the amount of makeup a person chooses to put on and the amount of clothing (or lack thereof) they choose to wear doesn't bother me, although personally I'm getting bored with dolls in miniskirts, just saying. I've found that, as a general rule, the type of person I'm attracted to, both physically and socially, doesn't wear much makeup (if any at all) and generally dresses sensibly, but then again, that's not to say that my particular "type" is attractive and people who don't do that are unattractive, it's just my personal preference. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole fake tan, fake boobs, high heels, dresses that show of the bottom half of your bum thing has social "this is what a pretty young woman should look like" undertones, but by the same token I don't have any problem with bikinis and short shorts in the summertime (oh man, there was this one outfit an ex wore, involving shorts shorts, and it was just the hottest thing ever. Seriously, it was powerful sexy) so call me a hypocrite if you must, but I do think there's a fundamental difference between the two.
I know this was a whole bunch of "what's the deal with...?" but gender issues are a huge, complicated issue and frankly, the entire world is sexist. Seriously, the whole goddamn place. I'd be pleased if people could really discuss and dissect just how messed up it is, but more often than not, people are too invested in the way the world works to really try and change it. How depressing.
Second, laying out my bona fides here: I'm not a feminist, by default. I'm a dude, I can't really be a proper feminist. I'm a feminist sympathiser though, and I find a lot of their theories make sense. I'm nowhere near as well read as I should be and I'm nowhere near the radical end of the spectrum, but I won't lie, I'm closer to that side than I am to the weird, faux-feminist lipstick thing. I just don't understand how modern "empowerment" is even remotely empowering. To clarify:
1) How is Sasha Grey (or any pornstar) a symbol of feminist empowerment? I understand that there was a brief period in the sixties when certain feminists were fans of Playboy magazine for presenting a new, liberated female sexuality, but even then, it's kinda flawed. Fast-forward to modern hardcore pornography and it's the same flawed logic a hundredfold. Yes, I agree that women should have the same freedom to be sexual and express their sexuality as men have and yes, I think that the whole "a man is a player, a woman is a slut" ideal is just plain stupid. You can't advocate equality on one hand then hold women to this arbitrary standard of sexual "purity" on the other. The door swings both ways; if men and women are to be truly equal, there's no reason why a woman can't have sex with as many (or as few) men or women (or otherwise, provided the parties consent) as they like. That said, modern pornography isn't about sexual freedom, it's a male domination fantasy. Seriously, just watch some porn, I guarantee it'll feature at least one scene where the woman gazes reverently at the man's penis like it's work of art, there'll be at least one scene where the man will say "you like that?" and the woman will make some response like she's in the absolute throes of orgasmic pleasure because, oh I don't know, she has two penises in her arse. The vast majority of pornography is made under the pretense that women are to be used for male satisfaction, and I have not yet found any (admittedly I haven't really been looking) where it's the reverse. Pornstars, particularly ones in the public eye like Sasha Grey or Bree Olsen, don't present a new, aggressive take on female sexuality as much as they propagate a penis worship fantasy.
2) I don't think any sexual act is inherently sexist but it's all context dependent. I've heard the argument presented that stuff like fellatio, man on woman anal sex and even penetrative vaginal sex are all sexist weapons that hamstring female sexual freedoms, but I don't buy this so much, again because the door swings both ways. Humans aren't robots, sex isn't a transaction. It can involve a number of partners of any gender, its definition isn't so clear cut. The point is, if anyone involved in the activity derives pleasure from a certain action and everyone else involved is cool with it, I don't see the harm. Comfort and consent, guys. Comfort and consent. The issue comes out of, once again, expectation that women should act a certain way and do certain things. A woman giving a man a blowjob isn't necessarily sexist, but a man expecting her to, getting annoyed when she doesn't and acting as if she's doing something wrong for not, that is sexist. I had an ex who was particularly uncomfortable with the whole idea of oral sex, both giving and receiving, so we just never did it. It's not that she was wrong, of course she wasn't. She was uncomfortable with the idea and to insist upon it would have made her even less comfortable, so it's not as if she could ever properly consent to it. Prostitution is a bit sticky here, because it blurs the lines of what consent is, but my incredibly simplistic view on the issue is: Trafficked women, drugs addicts, single parents living in poverty and the mentally handicapped do not have the proper tools to consider their situation, so I'd say to have sex for money with one of the mentioned would be forced. People who are of sound mind, i.e. aren't having sex for money for any reason other than their own desire to are not being forced. Please feel free to tear that apart if you find it flawed.
3) Makeup and revealing clothes... well, this wouldn't be an issue if men and women did it to equal measure, would it? The problem lies in the asymmetry. Personally, the amount of makeup a person chooses to put on and the amount of clothing (or lack thereof) they choose to wear doesn't bother me, although personally I'm getting bored with dolls in miniskirts, just saying. I've found that, as a general rule, the type of person I'm attracted to, both physically and socially, doesn't wear much makeup (if any at all) and generally dresses sensibly, but then again, that's not to say that my particular "type" is attractive and people who don't do that are unattractive, it's just my personal preference. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole fake tan, fake boobs, high heels, dresses that show of the bottom half of your bum thing has social "this is what a pretty young woman should look like" undertones, but by the same token I don't have any problem with bikinis and short shorts in the summertime (oh man, there was this one outfit an ex wore, involving shorts shorts, and it was just the hottest thing ever. Seriously, it was powerful sexy) so call me a hypocrite if you must, but I do think there's a fundamental difference between the two.
I know this was a whole bunch of "what's the deal with...?" but gender issues are a huge, complicated issue and frankly, the entire world is sexist. Seriously, the whole goddamn place. I'd be pleased if people could really discuss and dissect just how messed up it is, but more often than not, people are too invested in the way the world works to really try and change it. How depressing.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
I Don't Know Who's Fighting Who But At Least One Side Are Dicks.
Welcome to December, the beginning of summer and the accursed festive season that comes with it. Unfortunately, it's impossible to truly enjoy the oppressive heat and Christmas jingles. Why? Because we're at war! A war against Christmas!
Well, not really. Anyone with half a brain doesn't give a shit either way, but there's been some complaints about it, mostly from fundamentalist Christian nutjobs. Long story short, the increased secularisation of Christmas and greetings like "Happy Holidays" are all part of an evil librul [sic] plot to kill baby Jesus.
This is typical of American fundamentalist Christianity, in that the whole premise is built upon some imaginary persecution against them. In this case, the thinking is that the gub'mit [sic] is trying to phase out everything Christian from everything by avoiding overt references to Christmas (you know, the major holiday of one specific organised religion) from all its communications, while major department stores are doing the same, replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" because of "The Political Correctness Police" (can you hear the helicopters!?).
The problem is that it ignores some other truths about modern society; namely that there are a lot of different belief systems around, Most first world nations are (or claim to be) secular states, Christmas has changed meaning that many times it's almost unrecognisable and at any rate, it's about as sinful as you can get, what with the pork and the Christmas trees and such... long story short, the "War on Christmas" is built on lies and fought over nothing.
Thing is, it's largely an American problem, so why worry about it over here? Well, because we have our own angry fundamentalists; patriotic fundamentalists. Despite whispers that fundamentalist Christianity is on the rise in Australia, Australia's angry defenders of all things xenophobic and plain wrong are largely secular. They're not "defending" their faith, they're "defending" their nation. The overriding sentiment seems to be something along the lines of "they're trying to ban us from saying 'Merry Christmas' because it offends the Muslims! If you don't like our way of life, you should leave! Christmas is an Australian tradition!" I kid you not, this is the overriding sentiment.
First of all, who's trying to stop you from saying "Merry Christmas"? Say it all you fucking like. Just don't get your knickers in a twist when someone says "happy holidays" back, or says something that isn't overtly Christmas related. No-one is trying to steal your rich Australian cultural heritage (which is, as far as I can tell, shitty sausages, shittier beer, shittier still cigarettes and conversations about footy and sexism. Correct me if I'm wrong), and given that Australia was colonised a very short time ago by the British, where the turkey and carols and such have been "traditional" for a much longer time, I don't think you can claim it. Talking about Australian traditions is like a whiny pre-teen telling his parents that they aren't the boss of him. I'm sure you feel all grown up but you certainly don't look or sound it.
The "Love It Or Leave It" sentiment doesn't need to be picked apart any more, because frankly, if you believe it, you're a racist piece of shit who is barely deserving of oxygen. Harsh? Well, I don't have time for bigots. Buy into it all you like, just own your racism, at the very least. It's very easy for the majority to feel justified by saying "this is a democracy, majority rules!" but it's not a democracy. Australia has a democratic system for electing officials, but when it comes to the well-being of the individuals, the majority doesn't get to stamp their authority down and demand all conform to them. Co-existence doesn't have to equate to assimilation, and if that concept is difficult for you, it's probably because of your rampant xenophobia. Look at yourself, not them.
Tradition isn't necessarily good just because it's older or more established. Circumcision is a tradition for the Jewish people. Doesn't make it good or right. The war on Christmas, defending one's traditions in the face of some undefined foe, is just more xenophobic posturing from a group who has it too good to realise how good they have it.
Well, not really. Anyone with half a brain doesn't give a shit either way, but there's been some complaints about it, mostly from fundamentalist Christian nutjobs. Long story short, the increased secularisation of Christmas and greetings like "Happy Holidays" are all part of an evil librul [sic] plot to kill baby Jesus.
This is typical of American fundamentalist Christianity, in that the whole premise is built upon some imaginary persecution against them. In this case, the thinking is that the gub'mit [sic] is trying to phase out everything Christian from everything by avoiding overt references to Christmas (you know, the major holiday of one specific organised religion) from all its communications, while major department stores are doing the same, replacing "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" because of "The Political Correctness Police" (can you hear the helicopters!?).
The problem is that it ignores some other truths about modern society; namely that there are a lot of different belief systems around, Most first world nations are (or claim to be) secular states, Christmas has changed meaning that many times it's almost unrecognisable and at any rate, it's about as sinful as you can get, what with the pork and the Christmas trees and such... long story short, the "War on Christmas" is built on lies and fought over nothing.
Thing is, it's largely an American problem, so why worry about it over here? Well, because we have our own angry fundamentalists; patriotic fundamentalists. Despite whispers that fundamentalist Christianity is on the rise in Australia, Australia's angry defenders of all things xenophobic and plain wrong are largely secular. They're not "defending" their faith, they're "defending" their nation. The overriding sentiment seems to be something along the lines of "they're trying to ban us from saying 'Merry Christmas' because it offends the Muslims! If you don't like our way of life, you should leave! Christmas is an Australian tradition!" I kid you not, this is the overriding sentiment.
First of all, who's trying to stop you from saying "Merry Christmas"? Say it all you fucking like. Just don't get your knickers in a twist when someone says "happy holidays" back, or says something that isn't overtly Christmas related. No-one is trying to steal your rich Australian cultural heritage (which is, as far as I can tell, shitty sausages, shittier beer, shittier still cigarettes and conversations about footy and sexism. Correct me if I'm wrong), and given that Australia was colonised a very short time ago by the British, where the turkey and carols and such have been "traditional" for a much longer time, I don't think you can claim it. Talking about Australian traditions is like a whiny pre-teen telling his parents that they aren't the boss of him. I'm sure you feel all grown up but you certainly don't look or sound it.
The "Love It Or Leave It" sentiment doesn't need to be picked apart any more, because frankly, if you believe it, you're a racist piece of shit who is barely deserving of oxygen. Harsh? Well, I don't have time for bigots. Buy into it all you like, just own your racism, at the very least. It's very easy for the majority to feel justified by saying "this is a democracy, majority rules!" but it's not a democracy. Australia has a democratic system for electing officials, but when it comes to the well-being of the individuals, the majority doesn't get to stamp their authority down and demand all conform to them. Co-existence doesn't have to equate to assimilation, and if that concept is difficult for you, it's probably because of your rampant xenophobia. Look at yourself, not them.
Tradition isn't necessarily good just because it's older or more established. Circumcision is a tradition for the Jewish people. Doesn't make it good or right. The war on Christmas, defending one's traditions in the face of some undefined foe, is just more xenophobic posturing from a group who has it too good to realise how good they have it.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Parenting Win
A conversation I had with my dear father:
Me: I love Christmas in the same way I love any public holiday. It's an excuse to see friends and family, make a pig of myself and get very drunk. There's nothing religious and spiritual about it to me.
Dad: How can you say that? Where's your Christmas spirit?
Me: What? All the memories I have from Christmas are related to presents, sunshine, food, family and basically being a big greedy slob. The whole religious thing has never even come into it.
Dad: So there's nothing even remotely special or spiritual about Christmas to you?
Me: Not any more than any other public holiday or big get-together.
Dad: I feel like I failed as a parent...
Me: No way, dude, that means you succeeded as a parent.
My parents are funny people. Both were raised religious (my father especially) but their involvement in faith in general has been pretty minimal, mostly limited to Dad's Catholic guilt that flares up around Christmas and Easter. It also makes him feel guilty for relaxing, which is bizarre. As a result, church, Jesus and basically all things involving an active participation in religion were more a mild inconvenience or mad folly of Dad's that peetered out pretty much as soon as my sister and I were old enough to utter the phrase "nuts to this." I was pretty ambivalent to religion in general until the middle of high school, where I did a bit of reading, a bit of thinking basically turned into a full on, "faith is dumb" positive atheist. The kind who angrily blogs about how stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. A charming person, really, he says deluded and sarcastic.
We find another Christmas upon us, and I hear chatter of a "war of worldviews" in the US, with god-botherers up in arms about the greeting "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas," but I'm so detached from it I just can't conceptualise it as serious. To someone so separate from the whole issue, it just seems like a big, semantic joke. I mean, it's the same sentiment, really, one just references a specific name for the holiday that not everyone is celebrating. Of course, try telling that to a Christian... I've heard the argument that only Christians should get a holiday on Christmas, which is fine if every religious group gets their holidays off and we stop identifying as a "Christian nation," but that ain't gonna happen either. Why? Because every religious person is a hypocrite. Every. Last. One.
That seems harsh, but back up a second and consider; every faith (bar modern, new-agey stuff like Ba'hai. Maybe that should read "every major faith") has something in there about being the one true faith, all the others are pretenders, believe them and you'll be punished, yadda yadda yadda. So every adherent, by default, is decrying the merits of all the other faiths while touting the brilliance of their own, despite the fact they all have equal amounts of evidence for their accuracy (no, shut up. They're all as unlikely as each other. I've heard every argument, try me. They're all as unlikely as each other) and demand blind faith to follow anyway. It's basically a "who's the loudest and most obnoxious" argument for dominance.
So, Christians are in the majority here, so it must be a "Christian nation." Yeah? Is it a "female nation?" Is it a "white nation?" Go on, I defy anyone to call Australia a "white nation" without sounding like a racist dick. Calling any nation an "insert religion here nation" is a bigot, demanding special treatment for themselves while demanding others get marginalised for doing the exact same thing as them.
What does that have to do with my secular Christmas? Well, like I said to my dear father, he didn't fail as a parent, he succeeded. He succeeded in drawing me away from the gaping hole of hypocrisy and bigotry that is religion. He succeeded in making my memories of a special time of year about family, food, gifts and fun, not about dogma and piety. He succeeded in making me care about what happens here, in the real world, not in some fictional afterlife. He succeeded in making December 25th special without divine providence, but by making the world better for me by himself and with my family and friends.
December 25th may have been a religious thing for such a long time, but I'm claiming it for humanism. A big middle finger salute to any bigots that find that offensive, this is a season for love and celebration, not for your grovelling subservience and "baby's first philosophy" moral code. The heathens are happier, douchebags. Get on board.
Me: I love Christmas in the same way I love any public holiday. It's an excuse to see friends and family, make a pig of myself and get very drunk. There's nothing religious and spiritual about it to me.
Dad: How can you say that? Where's your Christmas spirit?
Me: What? All the memories I have from Christmas are related to presents, sunshine, food, family and basically being a big greedy slob. The whole religious thing has never even come into it.
Dad: So there's nothing even remotely special or spiritual about Christmas to you?
Me: Not any more than any other public holiday or big get-together.
Dad: I feel like I failed as a parent...
Me: No way, dude, that means you succeeded as a parent.
My parents are funny people. Both were raised religious (my father especially) but their involvement in faith in general has been pretty minimal, mostly limited to Dad's Catholic guilt that flares up around Christmas and Easter. It also makes him feel guilty for relaxing, which is bizarre. As a result, church, Jesus and basically all things involving an active participation in religion were more a mild inconvenience or mad folly of Dad's that peetered out pretty much as soon as my sister and I were old enough to utter the phrase "nuts to this." I was pretty ambivalent to religion in general until the middle of high school, where I did a bit of reading, a bit of thinking basically turned into a full on, "faith is dumb" positive atheist. The kind who angrily blogs about how stupid everyone who isn't an atheist is. A charming person, really, he says deluded and sarcastic.
We find another Christmas upon us, and I hear chatter of a "war of worldviews" in the US, with god-botherers up in arms about the greeting "happy holidays" over "merry Christmas," but I'm so detached from it I just can't conceptualise it as serious. To someone so separate from the whole issue, it just seems like a big, semantic joke. I mean, it's the same sentiment, really, one just references a specific name for the holiday that not everyone is celebrating. Of course, try telling that to a Christian... I've heard the argument that only Christians should get a holiday on Christmas, which is fine if every religious group gets their holidays off and we stop identifying as a "Christian nation," but that ain't gonna happen either. Why? Because every religious person is a hypocrite. Every. Last. One.
That seems harsh, but back up a second and consider; every faith (bar modern, new-agey stuff like Ba'hai. Maybe that should read "every major faith") has something in there about being the one true faith, all the others are pretenders, believe them and you'll be punished, yadda yadda yadda. So every adherent, by default, is decrying the merits of all the other faiths while touting the brilliance of their own, despite the fact they all have equal amounts of evidence for their accuracy (no, shut up. They're all as unlikely as each other. I've heard every argument, try me. They're all as unlikely as each other) and demand blind faith to follow anyway. It's basically a "who's the loudest and most obnoxious" argument for dominance.
So, Christians are in the majority here, so it must be a "Christian nation." Yeah? Is it a "female nation?" Is it a "white nation?" Go on, I defy anyone to call Australia a "white nation" without sounding like a racist dick. Calling any nation an "insert religion here nation" is a bigot, demanding special treatment for themselves while demanding others get marginalised for doing the exact same thing as them.
What does that have to do with my secular Christmas? Well, like I said to my dear father, he didn't fail as a parent, he succeeded. He succeeded in drawing me away from the gaping hole of hypocrisy and bigotry that is religion. He succeeded in making my memories of a special time of year about family, food, gifts and fun, not about dogma and piety. He succeeded in making me care about what happens here, in the real world, not in some fictional afterlife. He succeeded in making December 25th special without divine providence, but by making the world better for me by himself and with my family and friends.
December 25th may have been a religious thing for such a long time, but I'm claiming it for humanism. A big middle finger salute to any bigots that find that offensive, this is a season for love and celebration, not for your grovelling subservience and "baby's first philosophy" moral code. The heathens are happier, douchebags. Get on board.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Yeah, The Law Is Shit, But Follow It.
So, I'm assuming we're all up to speed on the case of the 14-year-old kid from New South Wales who got pinged buying weed in Bali and is now facing a serious jail term? If not, Google is your friend, but long story short, what I just said. The Indonesian laws on drugs are pretty intense, and so he's looking at some hard time in an adult prison should he get convicted. Needless to say, Australians everywhere have fired up their racism engines and started demanding he be released, or tried over here, or any other ridiculous load of crap. This includes our Prime Minister, who dropped the delightful clanger of saying that Australia supports his plight. Guess what, Julia? We don't all support his plight. Try him in Indonesia, following Indonesian laws.
Now, that view may surprise a lot of people. It's no secret I'm pretty pro drugs, I don't support jail sentences for minors or minor offences and I'm not exactly the biggest fan of governments telling people how to act. However, that isn't the issue here. Let's start from the beginning.
I won't go into great detail about why I think the kid is more a victim than a criminal, but it should be obvious. It has been revealed he's a troubled lad who smokes a lot of weed, so he's probably in need of at least a bit of therapy. I mean, recreational weed, go for your life. Heavy, regular use to cope with emotional stuff... well, it isn't the weed that's the problem there. So the act of purchasing the stuff with the intent to smoke it privately is definitely a minor offence, we're all agreed there.
There's a lot of information to support the idea that harsher penalties DON'T deter others, that they cost the state a lot of money and they turn otherwise minor offenders or just dumb kids into more hardened criminals who are more likely to commit bigger crimes later down the track, so again, probably isn't in this kid's best interest to be in prison. On a human level, I sympathise, if he does get convicted, it's gonna be a hard slog for him.
However, part of being a functioning member of society involves following the law. Now, in the relatively free country of Australia, there's a lot of room for common sense to prevail. I mean, if I get caught with a small amount of weed on me here, not a huge deal. No criminal record or anything. Sure, the laws could be way, way better, but everyone (and I mean everyone) gets away with at least a bit of illegal shit every now and then, partly due to the fact that as far as social liberalism goes, Australia does have a little bit of it. Indonesia, on the other hand... well, you've seen their drug laws. What this means is, you have to weigh up the risks. I wouldn't dare try and buy drugs over there, just because of the much stricter penalties. Doesn't mean the laws are right, just means their more tightly enforced. Pure statement of fact. I think the law is wrong in this case, and I think there are some serious human rights violations happening here, but he broke Indonesian law in Indonesia. There's no possible reason, whatsoever, for him to be released without trial, or to be tried over here, or anything like that.
A big part of this is the inherent first world racism that comes with relations with a nation like Indonesia. We are educated white folks, they are povvo brown people. Clearly we are smarter and more correct. Except we aren't, that's racist, we must respect their laws as much as we'd want them to accept ours. As an individual nation, we cannot just impose our will on another nation as if we're morally superior, especially when our own legal system is pretty immoral as it is. Maybe a UN body can have a look at it, but it's not our place to be telling them what to do, how to govern or what laws to enforce. If that bothers you, you're probably racist.
Now, that view may surprise a lot of people. It's no secret I'm pretty pro drugs, I don't support jail sentences for minors or minor offences and I'm not exactly the biggest fan of governments telling people how to act. However, that isn't the issue here. Let's start from the beginning.
I won't go into great detail about why I think the kid is more a victim than a criminal, but it should be obvious. It has been revealed he's a troubled lad who smokes a lot of weed, so he's probably in need of at least a bit of therapy. I mean, recreational weed, go for your life. Heavy, regular use to cope with emotional stuff... well, it isn't the weed that's the problem there. So the act of purchasing the stuff with the intent to smoke it privately is definitely a minor offence, we're all agreed there.
There's a lot of information to support the idea that harsher penalties DON'T deter others, that they cost the state a lot of money and they turn otherwise minor offenders or just dumb kids into more hardened criminals who are more likely to commit bigger crimes later down the track, so again, probably isn't in this kid's best interest to be in prison. On a human level, I sympathise, if he does get convicted, it's gonna be a hard slog for him.
However, part of being a functioning member of society involves following the law. Now, in the relatively free country of Australia, there's a lot of room for common sense to prevail. I mean, if I get caught with a small amount of weed on me here, not a huge deal. No criminal record or anything. Sure, the laws could be way, way better, but everyone (and I mean everyone) gets away with at least a bit of illegal shit every now and then, partly due to the fact that as far as social liberalism goes, Australia does have a little bit of it. Indonesia, on the other hand... well, you've seen their drug laws. What this means is, you have to weigh up the risks. I wouldn't dare try and buy drugs over there, just because of the much stricter penalties. Doesn't mean the laws are right, just means their more tightly enforced. Pure statement of fact. I think the law is wrong in this case, and I think there are some serious human rights violations happening here, but he broke Indonesian law in Indonesia. There's no possible reason, whatsoever, for him to be released without trial, or to be tried over here, or anything like that.
A big part of this is the inherent first world racism that comes with relations with a nation like Indonesia. We are educated white folks, they are povvo brown people. Clearly we are smarter and more correct. Except we aren't, that's racist, we must respect their laws as much as we'd want them to accept ours. As an individual nation, we cannot just impose our will on another nation as if we're morally superior, especially when our own legal system is pretty immoral as it is. Maybe a UN body can have a look at it, but it's not our place to be telling them what to do, how to govern or what laws to enforce. If that bothers you, you're probably racist.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Portishead Review
Surrounded by trees, seated on grass at the Belvoir Ampitheatre, the venue felt beautifully fitting for a band such as Portishead. The mellow vibe was probably helped by the six pack me and my companion shared on the way up, as well as the ever present plumes of white smoke emanating from all points in the crowd. Thank heavens for a contact high, because eight dollars for a can of Carlton Draught is fucking extortion.
Mercury Rev came on stage to a semi filled crowd, and was probably surprised at the sheer number of people who knew their songs and sung along to classics like "Holes" and "Endlessly." Jonathan Donahue's dreamy, wandering presence on stage was a joy to watch, while his wracked and emotional voice carried well over his band's waves of beautiful, melodic fuzz. The highlight of the set for me, however, was their faithful cover of Peter Gabriel's "Solsbury Hill," which was a perfect suit to Donahue's voice.
Portishead came on stage to rapturous applause and a decent plume of white smoke, and wordlessly took command of the stage with a tight, groovy performance. The sound quality was impeccable, the perfect mix of dense beats and Adrian Utley's tasteful guitar, with Beth Gibbons' unmistakable vocals mixed to perfection hanging just above them. With barely any movement, she commanded total attention from behind the mic and never missed a single, tortured note.
Highlights included the industrial unease of "Machine Gun", the smooth jazzy groove of "Sour Times" and an amazing rendition of "Wandering Star," stripped down to its bare bones of Geoff Barrow's haunting bass chords, Gibbons' pained whisper and Utley's slinky, melodic guitar lines. The best moment of the set, however, was "The Rip," slowly growing from acoustic fingerpicking via more Gibbons-brand angst into a hypnotic, synth led conclusion.
Despite being such a "studio" band, the music of Portishead translated incredibly well live. There was no pyrotechnics or crowd surfing, but the music doesn't call for it. Instead, the show was 6 incredibly talented musicians playing some of the most unique and defining music of the 90s and 2000s.
Mercury Rev came on stage to a semi filled crowd, and was probably surprised at the sheer number of people who knew their songs and sung along to classics like "Holes" and "Endlessly." Jonathan Donahue's dreamy, wandering presence on stage was a joy to watch, while his wracked and emotional voice carried well over his band's waves of beautiful, melodic fuzz. The highlight of the set for me, however, was their faithful cover of Peter Gabriel's "Solsbury Hill," which was a perfect suit to Donahue's voice.
Portishead came on stage to rapturous applause and a decent plume of white smoke, and wordlessly took command of the stage with a tight, groovy performance. The sound quality was impeccable, the perfect mix of dense beats and Adrian Utley's tasteful guitar, with Beth Gibbons' unmistakable vocals mixed to perfection hanging just above them. With barely any movement, she commanded total attention from behind the mic and never missed a single, tortured note.
Highlights included the industrial unease of "Machine Gun", the smooth jazzy groove of "Sour Times" and an amazing rendition of "Wandering Star," stripped down to its bare bones of Geoff Barrow's haunting bass chords, Gibbons' pained whisper and Utley's slinky, melodic guitar lines. The best moment of the set, however, was "The Rip," slowly growing from acoustic fingerpicking via more Gibbons-brand angst into a hypnotic, synth led conclusion.
Despite being such a "studio" band, the music of Portishead translated incredibly well live. There was no pyrotechnics or crowd surfing, but the music doesn't call for it. Instead, the show was 6 incredibly talented musicians playing some of the most unique and defining music of the 90s and 2000s.
You Think We Have It Bad...
I know proximity plays a big part in the relevance of news, as does it being current and fresh, and I also know, ahead of time, that this post is none of those things. The whole Republican Party brouhaha happening in the USA right now is such old news, it's aaaaaaall the way over there and virtually every politics story is about as fresh as a week old trout to the largely unwashed and uneducated masses out there, but I was musing on the topic a little while ago, and I had to ask myself a difficult question; why is it that I'm incredibly up to date with what's happening in the US yet I just don't give a shit about what's happening at home, politically? Of course, with a bit of thought and a decent application of logic, it becomes screamingly obvious as to why the news of the US grabs my attention while local news doesn't.
Big reason number one: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm not being flippant here, that show is an excellent source of news. It's not particularly in depth, but it usually provides a nice leaping off point from which to further explore the issues and does so in such a way as to keep the viewer hooked. Probably info-tainment at its best, or at least what it should be. I'm unsure why this doesn't exist in Australia, considering the success of shows like The Gruen Transfer (which is a must watch for everyone, ever) but at a guess, I'd say it's a combination of having no particularly funny or entertaining politically minded comedians in Australia and the inherent lack of theatre in Australian politics, at least compared to the US. The Chaser guys don't really count here, because they're more pranksters than honest political commentators, but beggars can't really be choosers. It also leads me to my next point.
Big reason number two: American politics, particularly where the Republican Party is involved, are batshit insane. Barely a week passes without something hilarious, maddening or just plain interesting happening. I mean, let's think back, we most recently had the dog and pony show of yet another debate wherein all but Mitt Romney made arses of themselves, before that we had the Rick Perry "...and the third thing..." piece of majestic idiocy, before that the Herman Cain sexual harrassment thing, Perry's past being under the microscope and the unfortunate Bush comparisons, Michele Bachmann being the front runner was scary for a while, Sarah Palin's inexplicable presence, and the whole Rick Santorum is a by product of anal sex thing (google "Santorum". Go on, I dare ya). Plus the ever present ridiculousness of Newt Gingrich and the pure, visceral sleaze that emanated from Mitt Romney and you have the high political theatre at its finest, and that's just the Republicans! The Democrats, gawd bless 'em, generally a bit more mellow but watching Obama flail for approval and milk the last of his "great white/black hope" card is also good for a titter.
To make the point further, consider the lineup for the Republican party candidates:
Ron Paul: Delightful old codger who's views are remarkably progressive for a Republican, and yet he wants to return to the gold standard, which makes no sense. Also, he looks like he's about to die at any time.
Rick Perry: Bush on steroids, a god-fearing Texan idiot of the highest calibre.
Herman Cain: Flat tax promoting pizza mogul who sexually harassed a number of women.
Mitt Romney: A sleazy mormon who'd sooner sell out his holy book than do anything to offend his constituents.
John Huntsman: A mellow and pleasant chap who used to work for Obama, and as such has no hope of ever winning this, so watching him slowly die is amazing fun.
Newt Gingrich: Angry old man who hates the gays.
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party god-botherer who really hates the gays.
Rick Santorum: The gays got revenge on him.
That was all off the top of my head. Meanwhile, apart from our two party leaders and the occasional MP who goes off the rails, I couldn't give you that huge a description of anyone. I try to keep abreast of what's going on here politically, but it's just not the same.
Big reason number three: We have to vote for a number of parties, large and small. My participation in the political system is compulsory, enforced and offers me a large array of parties to choose from, some one which address some of my concerns, some of which don't. I can tailor my vote in such a way to express my incredibly specific views, or just make a simple one that kinda fits a glove of some of the bigger parties. This changes the way the politicians advertise to you here, they aim for the middle and keep everything moderate. American politics doesn't have that, you have non-compulsory, two party voting. You don't have to be a part of it and if you are, you have reps or dems. That's it. It completely changes the way the parties run themselves and how they advertise, the main point of which being that Australian political advertising and posturing is very middle of the road, centrist, flavour of the month crap. It's incredibly disengaging, and while I remain early twenties and studying, no party will ever advertise to me, I represent waaaay too small a demographic. The result is that anyone with even a marginal education is more turned off by political salesmanship than turned on by it.
Those three reasons pretty much summarise why I, and so many other Australians, are more on top of American politics than Australian, and until they get addressed in one way or another, I think it's gonna remain a theme for some time. Luckily, it's entertaining as all hell, so I'm not too worried.
Big reason number one: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I'm not being flippant here, that show is an excellent source of news. It's not particularly in depth, but it usually provides a nice leaping off point from which to further explore the issues and does so in such a way as to keep the viewer hooked. Probably info-tainment at its best, or at least what it should be. I'm unsure why this doesn't exist in Australia, considering the success of shows like The Gruen Transfer (which is a must watch for everyone, ever) but at a guess, I'd say it's a combination of having no particularly funny or entertaining politically minded comedians in Australia and the inherent lack of theatre in Australian politics, at least compared to the US. The Chaser guys don't really count here, because they're more pranksters than honest political commentators, but beggars can't really be choosers. It also leads me to my next point.
Big reason number two: American politics, particularly where the Republican Party is involved, are batshit insane. Barely a week passes without something hilarious, maddening or just plain interesting happening. I mean, let's think back, we most recently had the dog and pony show of yet another debate wherein all but Mitt Romney made arses of themselves, before that we had the Rick Perry "...and the third thing..." piece of majestic idiocy, before that the Herman Cain sexual harrassment thing, Perry's past being under the microscope and the unfortunate Bush comparisons, Michele Bachmann being the front runner was scary for a while, Sarah Palin's inexplicable presence, and the whole Rick Santorum is a by product of anal sex thing (google "Santorum". Go on, I dare ya). Plus the ever present ridiculousness of Newt Gingrich and the pure, visceral sleaze that emanated from Mitt Romney and you have the high political theatre at its finest, and that's just the Republicans! The Democrats, gawd bless 'em, generally a bit more mellow but watching Obama flail for approval and milk the last of his "great white/black hope" card is also good for a titter.
To make the point further, consider the lineup for the Republican party candidates:
Ron Paul: Delightful old codger who's views are remarkably progressive for a Republican, and yet he wants to return to the gold standard, which makes no sense. Also, he looks like he's about to die at any time.
Rick Perry: Bush on steroids, a god-fearing Texan idiot of the highest calibre.
Herman Cain: Flat tax promoting pizza mogul who sexually harassed a number of women.
Mitt Romney: A sleazy mormon who'd sooner sell out his holy book than do anything to offend his constituents.
John Huntsman: A mellow and pleasant chap who used to work for Obama, and as such has no hope of ever winning this, so watching him slowly die is amazing fun.
Newt Gingrich: Angry old man who hates the gays.
Michele Bachmann: Tea Party god-botherer who really hates the gays.
Rick Santorum: The gays got revenge on him.
That was all off the top of my head. Meanwhile, apart from our two party leaders and the occasional MP who goes off the rails, I couldn't give you that huge a description of anyone. I try to keep abreast of what's going on here politically, but it's just not the same.
Big reason number three: We have to vote for a number of parties, large and small. My participation in the political system is compulsory, enforced and offers me a large array of parties to choose from, some one which address some of my concerns, some of which don't. I can tailor my vote in such a way to express my incredibly specific views, or just make a simple one that kinda fits a glove of some of the bigger parties. This changes the way the politicians advertise to you here, they aim for the middle and keep everything moderate. American politics doesn't have that, you have non-compulsory, two party voting. You don't have to be a part of it and if you are, you have reps or dems. That's it. It completely changes the way the parties run themselves and how they advertise, the main point of which being that Australian political advertising and posturing is very middle of the road, centrist, flavour of the month crap. It's incredibly disengaging, and while I remain early twenties and studying, no party will ever advertise to me, I represent waaaay too small a demographic. The result is that anyone with even a marginal education is more turned off by political salesmanship than turned on by it.
Those three reasons pretty much summarise why I, and so many other Australians, are more on top of American politics than Australian, and until they get addressed in one way or another, I think it's gonna remain a theme for some time. Luckily, it's entertaining as all hell, so I'm not too worried.
Monday, November 7, 2011
This Is My Penance For Ragging On Everyone So Much
It should never be said that I'm a great lover of people. The individual person, sure, I know a bunch of them and they seem alright and realistically, a pretty large portion of the female population do hold some sway over what I say and do, so it's not as if I hate every person on an individual and personal level. As a horde though? Dickheads the lot of them. While they remain that dehumanised gaggle that vote liberal, hate on gays and make it a social taboo for me to light a cigarette in a fucking beer garden (seriously, my local split the beer garden into smoking and non-smoking sections. Bunch of wankers...), I have nothing but hatred for them all. Seriously, would it be so difficult for you all to, en masse, tone down the whole "racist, sexist, ignorant swarm" thing? It's not a huge ask.
That said, there's a lot of people out who think misanthropy gives them a free pass to have no appreciation for the small number of awesome things the human race has done. I don't know whether it's because it's fashionable or people don't do enough reading, but all this "baby's first philosophy" nihilistic crap about how shitty the human race is and how much they've fucked up the planet and society needs to take a bit of a break. Yes society has some glaring flaws, yes the planet is pretty fucked and it looks like it's only getting worse and yes, when you die you cease to exist so there's no real self-interested reason in giving a shit about anyone else after they die, but seriously? Get a fucking clue.
First of all, there was a time when living beyond the age of 9 wasn't the norm. That's not prehistoric, that's 19th century Britain. The application of science, logic and reason made it possible for people to have a life expectancy more than half a century. Fuck, it made it possible for people to live for 100 years! Think about that; medical science is so amazing, it's allowed some people to witness the invention of film, television and computers all in one lifetime. Imagine if you were alive for another 100 years from this point; you'd be seeing Star Wars shit, in real life. That's fucking amazing.
I've long since come to accept the fact that I won't get to experience everything the universe has to offer. It blows, and I'm pissed off about it, but it's just that grand universal truth everyone has to face. Eventually you stop experiencing stuff. Luckily, the human race made a ridiculous number of leaps and bounds in learning and technology, to the point where I can experience so much more than any other human being who's lived before me. There's almost no limit to how much I can learn, how much music I can listen to or how many mind-bending chemicals I can introduce into my body. And that's all thanks to human ingenuity.
Let's lay off the disparaging of human history. It's full of pretty shitty stuff, but it's also full of some amazing feats of creativity and tenacity. Stuff like air conditioning and the internet. The stuff that makes life worth living. The stuff that makes it easier to get through another day contending with the fucking horde. God I hate those guys.
That said, there's a lot of people out who think misanthropy gives them a free pass to have no appreciation for the small number of awesome things the human race has done. I don't know whether it's because it's fashionable or people don't do enough reading, but all this "baby's first philosophy" nihilistic crap about how shitty the human race is and how much they've fucked up the planet and society needs to take a bit of a break. Yes society has some glaring flaws, yes the planet is pretty fucked and it looks like it's only getting worse and yes, when you die you cease to exist so there's no real self-interested reason in giving a shit about anyone else after they die, but seriously? Get a fucking clue.
First of all, there was a time when living beyond the age of 9 wasn't the norm. That's not prehistoric, that's 19th century Britain. The application of science, logic and reason made it possible for people to have a life expectancy more than half a century. Fuck, it made it possible for people to live for 100 years! Think about that; medical science is so amazing, it's allowed some people to witness the invention of film, television and computers all in one lifetime. Imagine if you were alive for another 100 years from this point; you'd be seeing Star Wars shit, in real life. That's fucking amazing.
I've long since come to accept the fact that I won't get to experience everything the universe has to offer. It blows, and I'm pissed off about it, but it's just that grand universal truth everyone has to face. Eventually you stop experiencing stuff. Luckily, the human race made a ridiculous number of leaps and bounds in learning and technology, to the point where I can experience so much more than any other human being who's lived before me. There's almost no limit to how much I can learn, how much music I can listen to or how many mind-bending chemicals I can introduce into my body. And that's all thanks to human ingenuity.
Let's lay off the disparaging of human history. It's full of pretty shitty stuff, but it's also full of some amazing feats of creativity and tenacity. Stuff like air conditioning and the internet. The stuff that makes life worth living. The stuff that makes it easier to get through another day contending with the fucking horde. God I hate those guys.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Hate Crimes and the Nonsense Therein.
Admittedly, this is American news so it's not as if it affects me, but on a philosophical level, I couldn't be any more disappointed with the new anti-bullying bill that passed in Michigan just recently. "Matt's Safe School Law," named for Matt Epling, who committed suicide due to ongoing bullying, was ostensibly designed to protect victims of bullying but was absolutely molested by the Republicans and Christian interest groups. You can read the article that discusses in depth just how molested it was here, but long story short, harassing people for moral or religious reasons isn't bullying under this law.
Stop and think about that for a moment... obvious rant about how preaching to people that they're gonna burn in hell unless they repent! is pretty obviously harassment, bullying and I'd argue at least slander notwithstanding, you can use "moral reasons" to fall back on anything. All jokes aside, I have moral reasons for disliking people of a right-wing bent... that doesn't give me the right to beat up Young Liberals. I mean, consider that scenario for a second; there's a young liberal kid in your high school (I didn't have any in my school but I dated an 18 year old member of the Liberal Party so I'm sure they exist...) and the kid with the Che Guevara shirt beats him up. Now, the leftie has ideological reasons for disagreeing with the rightie, and by the wording of the bill, a "moral conviction" justifies his harassment. That's messed up.
The obvious retort is that religion is different to any other moral or ideological conviction; you're talking about people's god, their whole worldview, it's waaaay bigger than puny political or ideological squabbles. Hey, guess what? No it fucking isn't. You don't get a "get out of jail free" if your "moral conviction" is based on some hallucination of a bearded surrogate space-father. You don't get a pass because you can cite an alleged higher authority. Imposing your will on someone against theirs is wrong. Wrong. It doesn't matter why you're imposing it, it's not about that. I'd like to think I don't have to explain why this is the case, but to cover my bases:
1) "Greater good" arguments are ultimately subjective and, especially when they're coming from a religious place, aren't grounded in reality, so there's no reason anyone should believe them.
2) If imposing your will on others against theirs is fine, it makes it OK for others to do the same to you, and then your tune would change pretty fucking quick.
Yes, this bill has been ruined to pander to religious zealots who feel it's their right to belittle anyone who doesn't come to their special club (who make up a surprisingly large amount of voters... different but slightly related issue) and yes, in a lot of ways this is a separation of church and state issue, but I don't want this to fall into a secular vs. religious argument. As the wording of the bill makes very clear, it doesn't have to be a religious reason, it can also be a "moral" one. This bill would be deplorable in an entirely atheist world, and entirely Catholic world or an entirely Klingon world. It's deplorable because it justifies the removal of people's rights based on how strongly some douchebag feels his opinion is correct. A reasonable society respects the right of the individual to hold their own personal opinion without fear of harassment. It does not make it OK for the majority to dictate to the minority what to think and feel, nor does it give tools to the sanctimonious to force others to believe as they do. This bill is a backwards, regressive, disgusting piece of legislature that gives bullies a new weapon against their victim. I eagerly await the news that this bill will get a rewrite, but I'm not holding my breath.
Stop and think about that for a moment... obvious rant about how preaching to people that they're gonna burn in hell unless they repent! is pretty obviously harassment, bullying and I'd argue at least slander notwithstanding, you can use "moral reasons" to fall back on anything. All jokes aside, I have moral reasons for disliking people of a right-wing bent... that doesn't give me the right to beat up Young Liberals. I mean, consider that scenario for a second; there's a young liberal kid in your high school (I didn't have any in my school but I dated an 18 year old member of the Liberal Party so I'm sure they exist...) and the kid with the Che Guevara shirt beats him up. Now, the leftie has ideological reasons for disagreeing with the rightie, and by the wording of the bill, a "moral conviction" justifies his harassment. That's messed up.
The obvious retort is that religion is different to any other moral or ideological conviction; you're talking about people's god, their whole worldview, it's waaaay bigger than puny political or ideological squabbles. Hey, guess what? No it fucking isn't. You don't get a "get out of jail free" if your "moral conviction" is based on some hallucination of a bearded surrogate space-father. You don't get a pass because you can cite an alleged higher authority. Imposing your will on someone against theirs is wrong. Wrong. It doesn't matter why you're imposing it, it's not about that. I'd like to think I don't have to explain why this is the case, but to cover my bases:
1) "Greater good" arguments are ultimately subjective and, especially when they're coming from a religious place, aren't grounded in reality, so there's no reason anyone should believe them.
2) If imposing your will on others against theirs is fine, it makes it OK for others to do the same to you, and then your tune would change pretty fucking quick.
Yes, this bill has been ruined to pander to religious zealots who feel it's their right to belittle anyone who doesn't come to their special club (who make up a surprisingly large amount of voters... different but slightly related issue) and yes, in a lot of ways this is a separation of church and state issue, but I don't want this to fall into a secular vs. religious argument. As the wording of the bill makes very clear, it doesn't have to be a religious reason, it can also be a "moral" one. This bill would be deplorable in an entirely atheist world, and entirely Catholic world or an entirely Klingon world. It's deplorable because it justifies the removal of people's rights based on how strongly some douchebag feels his opinion is correct. A reasonable society respects the right of the individual to hold their own personal opinion without fear of harassment. It does not make it OK for the majority to dictate to the minority what to think and feel, nor does it give tools to the sanctimonious to force others to believe as they do. This bill is a backwards, regressive, disgusting piece of legislature that gives bullies a new weapon against their victim. I eagerly await the news that this bill will get a rewrite, but I'm not holding my breath.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Abortions.
This is the first time I've been on the computer in about 4 days, so I apologise for the post being late. That said, the time away from the squawking mess of tubes has been nice... gotten in touch with some hobbies that I hadn't been doing in a while. May make a habit of staying net-free every so often.
So, because it has come up, will always come up and is just one of those topics that seems to rile people; abortions and why they're awesome. Yep, that's my stance. It's not even about choice here, no shit everyone should have the choice whether to have an abortion or not. Taking that choice away from people is totally retarded in the first place.
Abortions are 100%, irrevocably, a good thing. The less people having kids that they don't want, the better. If you wanted to keep the kid, I mean really wanted to, would you even be in the clinic? Of course you fucking wouldn't, but the fact it even passed through your mind is probably a pretty good indication that you aren't ready for kids yet. I'm not saying you never will be, but at this point in time, it's probably for the best to have the procedure. I understand there's some mitigating circumstances sometimes, maybe you wanted to take it to term but you were pressured not to by a partner or family or whatever, but it still ends up begging the same question. There are forces that really, really don't want that little clump of cells to become a life, and having parties wishing the kid didn't exist is not a good environment for a child to grow up in.
I hope you latched on to the phrasing in that previous paragraph. That "little clump of cells" is no more or less a new human being than a fucking scab at that point. I like how PZ Myers frames it, he uses "colonic cyst" rather than "scab." The point is; until about 3 months in, it's not alive, it doesn't have feelings, it's literally just chemistry at that point. Now, my biology understanding isn't too crash hot, but I believe around the 2nd trimester, there's enough by way of neurons to posit that the thing is probably aware of it's existence, but (and don't quote me on this) even then it's not quite aware that it's alive or anything like that. Seriously, you don't have a "baby" inside you until about 5-6 months in.
And like the crowing of the rooster, the old Christian screed of "potential life" comes up. To that I say; get fucked. Potential life is a meaningless phrase. I don't see you weeping over a used sanitary pad or the pages of a nudey mag that won't come apart any more. If you want to talk about the sanctity of potential life, your demand is pretty much that every woman must get pregnant with every ovulation, not even counting the millions and millions of sperm that die due to the egg not being fertilised or just not making the cut. Even if you extend it to say that "potential life starts when the ovum and sperm come together," that's still not taking into account the number of natural, spontaneous abortions that happen as a result of the fertilised egg not attaching itself to the uterine wall. This is more common than you think. That and spontaneous natural miscarriages... potential life gets snuffed out on a very regular basis for no reason.
Then it becomes a case of "people will use abortions as a form of contraception, it cheapens the miracle of life." I'm not kidding, I've heard this one before. I'm not going to lie, a big "so what" to this argument. If you'd rather use a medical procedure than a condom or the pill or any other variation of birth control that doesn't involve a time consuming, expensive and invasive procedure, be my guest, but frankly, it's a bit silly. We have easier ways to prevent pregnancy (if anyone suggests abstinence as a contraception method they're getting my foot up their arse), so unless it's true, honest to goodness laziness that you don't want to use a condom or the pill etc, why even bother? I suppose my point is, there are easier ways not to conceive, but again, if people want to use abortions as their favoured mode of contraception, I'm not gonna stop you.
The last thing you should ever do is bring a child into a world that doesn't want it. You're fucking that kid up from second number one. If you should accidentally fall pregnant and you don't want to keep the clump of cells that will eventually become a human being, do the right thing; get an abortion. Fuck, even if you aren't sure, err on the side of caution and get one anyway; it's really, really easy to make another. It's literally what penises are made to do. Don't listen to those pro-life shitheads, they have no idea what they're talking about, no perspective on reality and no understanding of what the science is.
So, because it has come up, will always come up and is just one of those topics that seems to rile people; abortions and why they're awesome. Yep, that's my stance. It's not even about choice here, no shit everyone should have the choice whether to have an abortion or not. Taking that choice away from people is totally retarded in the first place.
Abortions are 100%, irrevocably, a good thing. The less people having kids that they don't want, the better. If you wanted to keep the kid, I mean really wanted to, would you even be in the clinic? Of course you fucking wouldn't, but the fact it even passed through your mind is probably a pretty good indication that you aren't ready for kids yet. I'm not saying you never will be, but at this point in time, it's probably for the best to have the procedure. I understand there's some mitigating circumstances sometimes, maybe you wanted to take it to term but you were pressured not to by a partner or family or whatever, but it still ends up begging the same question. There are forces that really, really don't want that little clump of cells to become a life, and having parties wishing the kid didn't exist is not a good environment for a child to grow up in.
I hope you latched on to the phrasing in that previous paragraph. That "little clump of cells" is no more or less a new human being than a fucking scab at that point. I like how PZ Myers frames it, he uses "colonic cyst" rather than "scab." The point is; until about 3 months in, it's not alive, it doesn't have feelings, it's literally just chemistry at that point. Now, my biology understanding isn't too crash hot, but I believe around the 2nd trimester, there's enough by way of neurons to posit that the thing is probably aware of it's existence, but (and don't quote me on this) even then it's not quite aware that it's alive or anything like that. Seriously, you don't have a "baby" inside you until about 5-6 months in.
And like the crowing of the rooster, the old Christian screed of "potential life" comes up. To that I say; get fucked. Potential life is a meaningless phrase. I don't see you weeping over a used sanitary pad or the pages of a nudey mag that won't come apart any more. If you want to talk about the sanctity of potential life, your demand is pretty much that every woman must get pregnant with every ovulation, not even counting the millions and millions of sperm that die due to the egg not being fertilised or just not making the cut. Even if you extend it to say that "potential life starts when the ovum and sperm come together," that's still not taking into account the number of natural, spontaneous abortions that happen as a result of the fertilised egg not attaching itself to the uterine wall. This is more common than you think. That and spontaneous natural miscarriages... potential life gets snuffed out on a very regular basis for no reason.
Then it becomes a case of "people will use abortions as a form of contraception, it cheapens the miracle of life." I'm not kidding, I've heard this one before. I'm not going to lie, a big "so what" to this argument. If you'd rather use a medical procedure than a condom or the pill or any other variation of birth control that doesn't involve a time consuming, expensive and invasive procedure, be my guest, but frankly, it's a bit silly. We have easier ways to prevent pregnancy (if anyone suggests abstinence as a contraception method they're getting my foot up their arse), so unless it's true, honest to goodness laziness that you don't want to use a condom or the pill etc, why even bother? I suppose my point is, there are easier ways not to conceive, but again, if people want to use abortions as their favoured mode of contraception, I'm not gonna stop you.
The last thing you should ever do is bring a child into a world that doesn't want it. You're fucking that kid up from second number one. If you should accidentally fall pregnant and you don't want to keep the clump of cells that will eventually become a human being, do the right thing; get an abortion. Fuck, even if you aren't sure, err on the side of caution and get one anyway; it's really, really easy to make another. It's literally what penises are made to do. Don't listen to those pro-life shitheads, they have no idea what they're talking about, no perspective on reality and no understanding of what the science is.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Ceremonials Review
I feel really, really sorry for Florence Welch. I mean, she's gorgeous and talented and I want to marry her one day (call me, Flo ;)) but Lungs was an absolute monster. Every single was huge, the album is a ripper, it won that many bloody awards and I can attest that the Florence + The Machine live show is a must see, easily one of the best I've seen. Coming into a second album is hard enough but with the weight of expectation on your shoulders as big as she must be carrying on her delicate, classic frame, pale skin contrasting beautifully against her flame red hair framing those big eyes... wait, where was I going with this? Oh, right, weight of expectation.
To her credit, she definitely attacks the issue of how to top Lungs pretty well. Those moments in Lungs that gave you goosebumps, the big closing refrains in Dog Days Are Over or Drumming Song, those amazing vocal excesses that absolutely soar over the massive production... she's made an album of them. Every song could be a single, every tune an amazing testament to her incredible pipes. It's almost pointless me picking out specific songs to discuss, just randomly pick one, it'll be epic. Lead single "What The Water Gave Me" is a good start, though.
So, does that make Ceremonials a good album? Hell yes. Does it make it a great album? ...eeeeeh, sorry Flo, it kinda doesn't. See, the wall of sound backing up incredible vocal lines, wailing melodically and with amazing emotion works on a song to song basis, but 56 minutes of it and it starts to become, well, washy. By the last song it was all just waves of beautiful but indistinct noise. It's by no means bad, it's just missing something.
See, what made Lungs such a good album was the dynamics within it; you had the huge, almost operatic tracks, but then you also had Kiss With A Fist, Girl With One Eye, My Boy Builds Coffins... tracks which had space to breathe and a degree of relaxed brevity which made the bigger tracks that much bigger. Ceremonials, while still being huge, sounds less huge by comparison because everything is the same size.
I'm a big advocate of judging every album as if it was the group's debut, without the baggage of previous experience or biases, and as a standalone record, Ceremonials gets the thumbs up from me. The production cannot be faulted, the band is tight and Flo has a beautiful eye for hooks. Two beautiful eyes... and hair... and her skin is so white and smooth... I just want to stand next to her, she's so statuesque... uuuuh, back on topic. Ceremonials; excellent big production pop record. Just to clear up, Lungs is probably a stronger record, but this is more like dropping from a nine out of ten to an eight. I swore I'd never use a number system in my reviews but it's just the easiest way to express that idea. Give her a listen, just stay the fuck away from her, she's mine.
To her credit, she definitely attacks the issue of how to top Lungs pretty well. Those moments in Lungs that gave you goosebumps, the big closing refrains in Dog Days Are Over or Drumming Song, those amazing vocal excesses that absolutely soar over the massive production... she's made an album of them. Every song could be a single, every tune an amazing testament to her incredible pipes. It's almost pointless me picking out specific songs to discuss, just randomly pick one, it'll be epic. Lead single "What The Water Gave Me" is a good start, though.
So, does that make Ceremonials a good album? Hell yes. Does it make it a great album? ...eeeeeh, sorry Flo, it kinda doesn't. See, the wall of sound backing up incredible vocal lines, wailing melodically and with amazing emotion works on a song to song basis, but 56 minutes of it and it starts to become, well, washy. By the last song it was all just waves of beautiful but indistinct noise. It's by no means bad, it's just missing something.
See, what made Lungs such a good album was the dynamics within it; you had the huge, almost operatic tracks, but then you also had Kiss With A Fist, Girl With One Eye, My Boy Builds Coffins... tracks which had space to breathe and a degree of relaxed brevity which made the bigger tracks that much bigger. Ceremonials, while still being huge, sounds less huge by comparison because everything is the same size.
I'm a big advocate of judging every album as if it was the group's debut, without the baggage of previous experience or biases, and as a standalone record, Ceremonials gets the thumbs up from me. The production cannot be faulted, the band is tight and Flo has a beautiful eye for hooks. Two beautiful eyes... and hair... and her skin is so white and smooth... I just want to stand next to her, she's so statuesque... uuuuh, back on topic. Ceremonials; excellent big production pop record. Just to clear up, Lungs is probably a stronger record, but this is more like dropping from a nine out of ten to an eight. I swore I'd never use a number system in my reviews but it's just the easiest way to express that idea. Give her a listen, just stay the fuck away from her, she's mine.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Fuck, I Should Have Reviewed The Hunter Today.
Curse my hubris, now I have to make a blog post out of nothing. Uuuuuugh this is gonna be painful for all involved.
I'm sick of people getting mortally offended when I disagree with them. I'm not calling you a shithead when I say I don't agree, for fucks sake. I mean, if you put your idea out into the public forum, surely you realise that some people may not agree with it, and they will probably express that opinion, right? Just as you expressed yours... You know what, this is running closer to a topic than a tangent, here we fucking go.
Say you've met someone, and you don't know them well enough to know all the ins and outs of their beliefs but you know enough about them to know they're a decent person, you have mutual friends, isn't it a safe bet that they're not gonna turn out to be a closet racist, or homophobe, or rapist or whatever? Wouldn't you at least trust your own judgement, if not your friends'?
I had a discussion with a rad-fem friend of mine about Schroedinger's Rapist, and either my understanding of the concept is fucked or I give off way more of a rapist vibe than I'd like. See, my understanding of the concept is that, although one in six men are statistically rapists, once you've got to know the men, the odds get better. They're never zero, but men who demonstrate certain personality traits are more or less likely to rape a lady, so you can kinda pick and choose your male company accordingly. Apparently not, though. Apparently I'm just as likely to be a rapist as the guy with an "I <3 Rape" shirt... that hurts.
Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah... I don't hate you just because I disagree, I just think you're wrong. Let us talk and discuss, as men used to do. Now I must depart, as I have double vision. Toodles.
I'm sick of people getting mortally offended when I disagree with them. I'm not calling you a shithead when I say I don't agree, for fucks sake. I mean, if you put your idea out into the public forum, surely you realise that some people may not agree with it, and they will probably express that opinion, right? Just as you expressed yours... You know what, this is running closer to a topic than a tangent, here we fucking go.
Say you've met someone, and you don't know them well enough to know all the ins and outs of their beliefs but you know enough about them to know they're a decent person, you have mutual friends, isn't it a safe bet that they're not gonna turn out to be a closet racist, or homophobe, or rapist or whatever? Wouldn't you at least trust your own judgement, if not your friends'?
I had a discussion with a rad-fem friend of mine about Schroedinger's Rapist, and either my understanding of the concept is fucked or I give off way more of a rapist vibe than I'd like. See, my understanding of the concept is that, although one in six men are statistically rapists, once you've got to know the men, the odds get better. They're never zero, but men who demonstrate certain personality traits are more or less likely to rape a lady, so you can kinda pick and choose your male company accordingly. Apparently not, though. Apparently I'm just as likely to be a rapist as the guy with an "I <3 Rape" shirt... that hurts.
Where was I going with this? Oh, yeah... I don't hate you just because I disagree, I just think you're wrong. Let us talk and discuss, as men used to do. Now I must depart, as I have double vision. Toodles.
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Hunter Review
Oh man, is there anything better than 40-year-old stoner metalhead country fans who can play the shit out of their instruments? I wouldn't know, Mastodon are about the only band who fit that description... well, Maylene and the Sons of Disaster aren't 40-year-olds or stoners, Baroness aren't 40 and I'm sure there are a lot of stoner metal bands out there who like country... look, the point is, Mastodon is a really good band.
Having established my biases, let's dive headfirst into the review of Mastodon's new album, "The Hunter." The band has touted this as a re-imagining of their sound and aesthetic, all the way down to the typeface used on the album cover; a gutsy move for a band that has established a huge fanbase and earned gobs of critical acclaim for all four of their previous records. That said, all four of their previous records sound very different, so "changing up the Mastodon sound" is hardly as big a deal as, say, Dragonforce or Motorhead saying it.
So, what is this new Mastodon sound? Well, somewhat awkwardly... quite reminiscent of the old Mastodon sound. Or should I say, sounds. "Black Tongue" and "Blasteroids" could slot into 2002's Remission album nicely, "The Octopus Has No Friends" could be a Blood Mountain b-side and tracks like "Stargasm" and "Bone Dry Valley" come from the same proggy place as 2009's Crack The Skye.
Is this a bad thing? Not so much. If you're a fan of their previous work, there's no reason why you shouldn't like this album. If you're a fan of melodic heavy music in general, it's definitely worth a listen. The group may segue into stranger places here and there, especially on the spacey and absurd "Creature Lives," but for the most part it's full of sludgy riffage, blasting choruses and Brent Hinds doing that thing where he shreds but it doesn't really sound like normal shredding. It certainly doesn't re-invent the genre or break any new ground, and it's not the best metal release of 2011, but if you want to listen to a decent metal album that takes a few creative risks, this should definitely be on your list.
Having established my biases, let's dive headfirst into the review of Mastodon's new album, "The Hunter." The band has touted this as a re-imagining of their sound and aesthetic, all the way down to the typeface used on the album cover; a gutsy move for a band that has established a huge fanbase and earned gobs of critical acclaim for all four of their previous records. That said, all four of their previous records sound very different, so "changing up the Mastodon sound" is hardly as big a deal as, say, Dragonforce or Motorhead saying it.
So, what is this new Mastodon sound? Well, somewhat awkwardly... quite reminiscent of the old Mastodon sound. Or should I say, sounds. "Black Tongue" and "Blasteroids" could slot into 2002's Remission album nicely, "The Octopus Has No Friends" could be a Blood Mountain b-side and tracks like "Stargasm" and "Bone Dry Valley" come from the same proggy place as 2009's Crack The Skye.
Is this a bad thing? Not so much. If you're a fan of their previous work, there's no reason why you shouldn't like this album. If you're a fan of melodic heavy music in general, it's definitely worth a listen. The group may segue into stranger places here and there, especially on the spacey and absurd "Creature Lives," but for the most part it's full of sludgy riffage, blasting choruses and Brent Hinds doing that thing where he shreds but it doesn't really sound like normal shredding. It certainly doesn't re-invent the genre or break any new ground, and it's not the best metal release of 2011, but if you want to listen to a decent metal album that takes a few creative risks, this should definitely be on your list.
Friday, October 21, 2011
The Pros And Cons Of Fucking Da Poh-Leece.
It's CHOGM this weekend, oh joyous day. I'm happily separate from the whole parade of self-congratulatory wank and scolding poor countries, but as is regularly the case, something about the whole event has gotten my heckles up, and I feel the need to play devils advocate once again. I should totally rename this blog "Don Quixote" or something like that, what with all the tilting at windmills I seem to do.
So, should the police be able to arrest the CHOGM protestors or is it an infringement on their civil liberties? And the wider question, are the police just a tool for social control that exist to limit our rights?
Short answer, yes. In their current form, the police are something of a tool of government oppression and a weapon to maintain the status quo, blah blah blah same old shit you've heard from your token leftie friend a million times before. The CHOGM protesters are, by and large, staging a non-violent demonstration on a public space. It's not as if there's a law against what they're doing, but there's the risk one of the signs might piss of Her Majesty or something, so the fuzz come in and sweep up the young folks. Hypothetically, if someone throws a bottle at the the Queen or a delegate or something, that person is probably gonna get scooped up and they kinda deserve it. See, throwing a bottle at someone is dangerous, someone could get hurt. Assuming it's a glass bottle... I couldn't see a plastic bottle doing much damage unless it was full. Tangent! My point is, if someone did something violent or dangerous, they'd get arrested anyway, not because they are/were a protester, but for the relatively harmless act of staging a demonstration, there's nothing illegal there, so arresting any protesters would be a pretty good vindication of the whole "police as social control" theory.
Consider how much police presence there'll be in the city during this weekend. It's gonna be insane, I've heard tales of snipers, swat guys, the whole deal. I'm skeptical to their validity but I wouldn't put it passed this increasingly conservative government of ours. I consider this an overreaction, and there'll probably be some pretty dodgy arrests, but hey, you're entitled to your own opinion on just how many cops you'd need to protect a delegation of officials from over 50 nations.
So, fuck the police, right? Well, not so much... see, as much as I don't like tools of government oppression and things of the sort, I'm also a fan of my own safety and the keeping of my shit in wherever it is I'm living at the time. The simple fact of the matter is, if people had no restrictions shit would get fucked. That's just one example of what happens when people are given free reign; if they think they can get away with it, a surprisingly large amount of people will start going nuts. I'm not going to say everyone advocates this, but I'm sure most people are advocates of their right to safety of themselves and their belongings, so from that perspective, a team of folks who's job it is to look after our safety probably has a place in a functioning society.
In their current form, the power of the police is being abused to keep everyone toeing the line; locking up people for stuff like marijuana possession or public urination is excessive and unnecessary, but it keeps people fearing the dangling sword of the law and perpetuates the meme that the police are gon' come getcha if you do anything "naughty," naughty being what pisses off the old white guys that run the show. Unfortunately, the larger a society is, the less it regulates itself and so some sort of institution that protects the safety of the citizenry and enforces the rules that society as a whole decides are the best ones to live by is unfortunately, necessary.
So, should the police be able to arrest the CHOGM protestors or is it an infringement on their civil liberties? And the wider question, are the police just a tool for social control that exist to limit our rights?
Short answer, yes. In their current form, the police are something of a tool of government oppression and a weapon to maintain the status quo, blah blah blah same old shit you've heard from your token leftie friend a million times before. The CHOGM protesters are, by and large, staging a non-violent demonstration on a public space. It's not as if there's a law against what they're doing, but there's the risk one of the signs might piss of Her Majesty or something, so the fuzz come in and sweep up the young folks. Hypothetically, if someone throws a bottle at the the Queen or a delegate or something, that person is probably gonna get scooped up and they kinda deserve it. See, throwing a bottle at someone is dangerous, someone could get hurt. Assuming it's a glass bottle... I couldn't see a plastic bottle doing much damage unless it was full. Tangent! My point is, if someone did something violent or dangerous, they'd get arrested anyway, not because they are/were a protester, but for the relatively harmless act of staging a demonstration, there's nothing illegal there, so arresting any protesters would be a pretty good vindication of the whole "police as social control" theory.
Consider how much police presence there'll be in the city during this weekend. It's gonna be insane, I've heard tales of snipers, swat guys, the whole deal. I'm skeptical to their validity but I wouldn't put it passed this increasingly conservative government of ours. I consider this an overreaction, and there'll probably be some pretty dodgy arrests, but hey, you're entitled to your own opinion on just how many cops you'd need to protect a delegation of officials from over 50 nations.
So, fuck the police, right? Well, not so much... see, as much as I don't like tools of government oppression and things of the sort, I'm also a fan of my own safety and the keeping of my shit in wherever it is I'm living at the time. The simple fact of the matter is, if people had no restrictions shit would get fucked. That's just one example of what happens when people are given free reign; if they think they can get away with it, a surprisingly large amount of people will start going nuts. I'm not going to say everyone advocates this, but I'm sure most people are advocates of their right to safety of themselves and their belongings, so from that perspective, a team of folks who's job it is to look after our safety probably has a place in a functioning society.
In their current form, the power of the police is being abused to keep everyone toeing the line; locking up people for stuff like marijuana possession or public urination is excessive and unnecessary, but it keeps people fearing the dangling sword of the law and perpetuates the meme that the police are gon' come getcha if you do anything "naughty," naughty being what pisses off the old white guys that run the show. Unfortunately, the larger a society is, the less it regulates itself and so some sort of institution that protects the safety of the citizenry and enforces the rules that society as a whole decides are the best ones to live by is unfortunately, necessary.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Dream Analysis Of A Messed Up Dream By Someone With Only Rudimentary Dream Analysis Understanding
Being told I'm classless because I live in the northern suburbs by a man with a moustache wearing a grey cotton tracksuit while trying to buy an apartment from him, then being sent to scout for different apartment complexes which all somehow turned out to be exclusively homosexual sports clubs but finding a rather attractive young bikini model in one and, after a rousing round of cunnilingus and appearing on a magazine cover doing the same, walking halfway across Perth to rob a video shop where, as I left, I ran alongside a four wheel drive consoling a tearful ex-girlfriend that I hadn't changed.
That is the basic synopsis of a dream I had last night. I'm a firm believer that everything in dreams is representative of something on the dreamers mind, so here's my attempted dissection.
First of all, the fact that I was trying but failing to buy an apartment; pretty obvious, my desire for independence weighed against the self imposed roadblocks that prevent me from getting it. Realistically, I could quit drinking, stop going out and get a full time job while studying in my spare time and could afford a place of my own, but that would involve me giving up home comforts, so there's internal conflict manifested in a physical situation. In the dream, it was never resolved whether or not I finally did purchase the apartment, which is probably symbolic of how the internal discussion continues in my brain.
The man in the tracksuit calling me classless is, in my opinion, something like middle class guilt manifesting as an antagonist. Being middle class, Caucasian, straight and male, it's very easy for me to lose perspective and fall into a haze of ignorant privilege, but this is something I try to avoid. The overtly classless man attacking me is some sort of mental reminder to not let myself become lazy in my social awareness.
Scouting for different apartment complexes is probably an extension of the "independence" theme, but the transformation into homosexual sports clubs is probably about internal alienation. I have nothing against homosexuals in any way, but I couldn't truly belong to a gay community because I don't share their frame of reference. I suppose this reflects my paranoia about everyone in society secretly hating me or marking me as an "outsider," which probably needs to be fleshed out in more detail but I don't think I mentally possess the tools to do that right now.
The bikini model is clearly a sex thing; I've got a pretty big libido (especially lately... I pretty much have not stopped thinking about sex for like a week) and so really I'm surprised how tame it was. I've had dreams recently involving menage de trois with movie stars (and close friends... awkward) on infinite beds... the fact that it was pretty straight, fairly tame cunnilingus is a slowing down for me. The magazine thing is probably just an admission that I'm an extroverted, exhibitionist arsehole.
The long walk to the video store just to rob it is a bizarre one, for a few reasons; number one, I'm often running or walking in dreams, but I never go anywhere. I usually stay in the one place the whole time, expending energy but going nowhere. Apparently this symbolises my lack of agency. This dream was different, I strode effortlessly to my destination without feeling tired or hot. This could possibly symbolise a newfound sense of agency, but agency towards committing crimes? It doesn't make sense. It could possibly be that my increased control over my life that I feel is being used to do things that people don't approve of (and there's been a couple things lately that friends don't approve of) which probably implies that I feel some sort of guilt deep down, but this is all speculation.
The last part of the dream is a bit weirder. As I ran from the video shop, I passed my ex-girlfriend and her family in their car and I greeted them. They drove beside me as I ran, and she proceeded to berate me for the kind of person I'd become. In the dream, I responded that I hadn't changed at all, that I am who I always was and it was her who had the problem and must come to terms with it, which resulted in her breaking down into tears and slapping me (out of an open car that I was keeping up with as I ran... told you it was weird). My ex most certainly wasn't the break down into tears type, so that was a bit odd to see. I was told to get into the car where she and I sat very, very close. As in, all over each other close. Sex drive, lingering feelings, weird symbolism for my desire to please everyone... I couldn't tell you what it means because it was at that point my brain exited the dream so it's all a bit hazy, but yeah, definitely a weird, emotionally confused bundle of thoughts right there.
Conflicted desire for independence, personal desire to remain socially conscious, a feeling of alienation, overt libido, newfound power used to alienate others, an admission of personal pride juxtaposed against past versions of myself that it clashed with... Yeah, I definitely need meds.
That is the basic synopsis of a dream I had last night. I'm a firm believer that everything in dreams is representative of something on the dreamers mind, so here's my attempted dissection.
First of all, the fact that I was trying but failing to buy an apartment; pretty obvious, my desire for independence weighed against the self imposed roadblocks that prevent me from getting it. Realistically, I could quit drinking, stop going out and get a full time job while studying in my spare time and could afford a place of my own, but that would involve me giving up home comforts, so there's internal conflict manifested in a physical situation. In the dream, it was never resolved whether or not I finally did purchase the apartment, which is probably symbolic of how the internal discussion continues in my brain.
The man in the tracksuit calling me classless is, in my opinion, something like middle class guilt manifesting as an antagonist. Being middle class, Caucasian, straight and male, it's very easy for me to lose perspective and fall into a haze of ignorant privilege, but this is something I try to avoid. The overtly classless man attacking me is some sort of mental reminder to not let myself become lazy in my social awareness.
Scouting for different apartment complexes is probably an extension of the "independence" theme, but the transformation into homosexual sports clubs is probably about internal alienation. I have nothing against homosexuals in any way, but I couldn't truly belong to a gay community because I don't share their frame of reference. I suppose this reflects my paranoia about everyone in society secretly hating me or marking me as an "outsider," which probably needs to be fleshed out in more detail but I don't think I mentally possess the tools to do that right now.
The bikini model is clearly a sex thing; I've got a pretty big libido (especially lately... I pretty much have not stopped thinking about sex for like a week) and so really I'm surprised how tame it was. I've had dreams recently involving menage de trois with movie stars (and close friends... awkward) on infinite beds... the fact that it was pretty straight, fairly tame cunnilingus is a slowing down for me. The magazine thing is probably just an admission that I'm an extroverted, exhibitionist arsehole.
The long walk to the video store just to rob it is a bizarre one, for a few reasons; number one, I'm often running or walking in dreams, but I never go anywhere. I usually stay in the one place the whole time, expending energy but going nowhere. Apparently this symbolises my lack of agency. This dream was different, I strode effortlessly to my destination without feeling tired or hot. This could possibly symbolise a newfound sense of agency, but agency towards committing crimes? It doesn't make sense. It could possibly be that my increased control over my life that I feel is being used to do things that people don't approve of (and there's been a couple things lately that friends don't approve of) which probably implies that I feel some sort of guilt deep down, but this is all speculation.
The last part of the dream is a bit weirder. As I ran from the video shop, I passed my ex-girlfriend and her family in their car and I greeted them. They drove beside me as I ran, and she proceeded to berate me for the kind of person I'd become. In the dream, I responded that I hadn't changed at all, that I am who I always was and it was her who had the problem and must come to terms with it, which resulted in her breaking down into tears and slapping me (out of an open car that I was keeping up with as I ran... told you it was weird). My ex most certainly wasn't the break down into tears type, so that was a bit odd to see. I was told to get into the car where she and I sat very, very close. As in, all over each other close. Sex drive, lingering feelings, weird symbolism for my desire to please everyone... I couldn't tell you what it means because it was at that point my brain exited the dream so it's all a bit hazy, but yeah, definitely a weird, emotionally confused bundle of thoughts right there.
Conflicted desire for independence, personal desire to remain socially conscious, a feeling of alienation, overt libido, newfound power used to alienate others, an admission of personal pride juxtaposed against past versions of myself that it clashed with... Yeah, I definitely need meds.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
The Never-Ending Struggle Of What You Want Against What You Need.
As much as the individual may feel autonomous, in control of their destiny and beholden to none but themselves, the individual is also deluded and wrong. Between the genetic commands that shriek at us on pretty much every level of our consciousness, the underlying social pressures to conform and the immediate peer pressure one may face without even realising it, your personality and choices are as much everyone else's as they are yours. What is curious, then, is how often genetics, society and immediate peer pressure come into direct conflict with each other.
Consider monogamy. While it is true that companionship is good for the mental well being of most people, the idea of conflating one's sex partner with one's long term companion doesn't really have a naturalistic explanation. And before anyone jumps in with the "fuckin' Christians ruining everything!" screed, monogamous marriage isn't a Christian invention. Tonnes of other faiths were pulling that shit way before Christianity even existed. In terms of a cohabitation contract, I get why marriage is appealing, but in terms of companions and sex partners, it's a clear example of society clashing with physiology.
So, why would society fight against physiology? Nowadays the religious influence is undeniable, but it's 2011, there are more atheists and agnostics than ever before, while more religious folks are on the liberal end of the spectrum. It's a scary thought to consider; some things are so ingrained in society, there's no rational explanation for them, but yet we still believe them as if they were true. The average person will be pro-monogamy, anti-drugs (but somehow OK with alcohol and cigarettes) and fairly set on getting a well paying job that they may not like, but does that really make sense? Monogamy covered, the wealth of evidence to suggest that certain drugs are nowhere near as bad as they're made out to be, while alcohol and smokes are up there with the worst things for you. To put it in perspective, I was prescribed a drug as a child that is now illegal for me to use recreationally as an adult. Think about that. My developing brain was fine for amphetamines, but if I want to get focussed and buzzed now (and when assignment week or exam time rolls up, why the hell wouldn't I?) I'm breaking the law. It's bonkers. As for the job thing, I believe I've ranted on the topic before but how insane is a society that values income before happiness? Have your cake and eat it too if you can, but seriously, don't settle for the cash. You will regret it.
As much as I'd like to think I'm above all this social pressure, the simple truth of the matter is my psyche is completely and totally shaped by a combination of those three forces; my genetic imperatives are tempered by wider social pressures telling me to be civil and civilised, while peer pressure inside that encourages me to conform to some social norms while rejecting others. None of it was really my choice, but awareness allows you to compensate for it. As is always the case, the more you understand how people work, the more torn you are between forgiving them and hating them. Looks like I'll just conform to my physical desire to get plastered, that'll help.
Consider monogamy. While it is true that companionship is good for the mental well being of most people, the idea of conflating one's sex partner with one's long term companion doesn't really have a naturalistic explanation. And before anyone jumps in with the "fuckin' Christians ruining everything!" screed, monogamous marriage isn't a Christian invention. Tonnes of other faiths were pulling that shit way before Christianity even existed. In terms of a cohabitation contract, I get why marriage is appealing, but in terms of companions and sex partners, it's a clear example of society clashing with physiology.
So, why would society fight against physiology? Nowadays the religious influence is undeniable, but it's 2011, there are more atheists and agnostics than ever before, while more religious folks are on the liberal end of the spectrum. It's a scary thought to consider; some things are so ingrained in society, there's no rational explanation for them, but yet we still believe them as if they were true. The average person will be pro-monogamy, anti-drugs (but somehow OK with alcohol and cigarettes) and fairly set on getting a well paying job that they may not like, but does that really make sense? Monogamy covered, the wealth of evidence to suggest that certain drugs are nowhere near as bad as they're made out to be, while alcohol and smokes are up there with the worst things for you. To put it in perspective, I was prescribed a drug as a child that is now illegal for me to use recreationally as an adult. Think about that. My developing brain was fine for amphetamines, but if I want to get focussed and buzzed now (and when assignment week or exam time rolls up, why the hell wouldn't I?) I'm breaking the law. It's bonkers. As for the job thing, I believe I've ranted on the topic before but how insane is a society that values income before happiness? Have your cake and eat it too if you can, but seriously, don't settle for the cash. You will regret it.
As much as I'd like to think I'm above all this social pressure, the simple truth of the matter is my psyche is completely and totally shaped by a combination of those three forces; my genetic imperatives are tempered by wider social pressures telling me to be civil and civilised, while peer pressure inside that encourages me to conform to some social norms while rejecting others. None of it was really my choice, but awareness allows you to compensate for it. As is always the case, the more you understand how people work, the more torn you are between forgiving them and hating them. Looks like I'll just conform to my physical desire to get plastered, that'll help.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
...So, Does Anyone Win This One?
The answer is: No. At this point in time, the way the carbon tax legislation looks, no one wins. Here's my take on why.
The Liberal Party lose this one on the mundane level of a piece of legislation they resisted passed, but they also lose it on bit of a personal level for me. Guys, please stop crowing about broken promises and the death of democracy, you're making no sense. The Labor Party pledged that there'd be no carbon tax under a Labor government, but we don't have a Labor government, we have a Labor-Greens coalition. The conditions which Labor put forward for there being no carbon tax were not met, no promises were broken. As for the whole "death of democracy" thing... didn't it pass on a majority vote? Oh, but it wasn't the citizens majority, regular people didn't get to vote... as they shouldn't have. You don't hold a massive, nationwide vote on every bill, it's not how representative government works. Stop playing to the general ignorance of people, Liberals. I know it's normally a legitimate political strategy, but in this case it's making you look bad. Er, worse.
Labor lose this one because the bill is a dud. It might offer some incentives to go green, but for the most part it's just gonna pass costs on to the consumer. I'm a consumer, so this pisses me off, but seriously, can we stop letting CEOs and massive corporations win? They don't need any help, they're doing great. They aren't "job creators" or however the Rand worshippers want to frame it, they don't need any more legs-up. Labor's reaction to their victory was pretty shameful, but hey, I don't expect class from a bunch of union heavies and their cronies, so that falls in the indifference pile.
Greens lose this one because they're showing just how much they fail as a left alternative. Any left-wing party worth its salt would have made the bill radically different, protecting consumers and making the incredibly rich big corporations wear it, but of course, in this centre-right government, that's a no-no. As an environmental party, Greens do fine, but for protecting socially liberal, economically left ideas and trying to bring a sense of rationality to an increasingly USA-esque government, they're just not cutting it.
Of course, it goes without saying that consumers lose this one, the costs get passed to them, but manufacturers lose this one too. There'll be layoffs, there'll be collapses and reshuffles, a few people with business degrees will be incredibly stressed, but they'll also be rich so screw them. I have no sympathy for guys like that, it's like when that Hayward wanker at BP kept crying and saying he just wanted his life to go back to normal... guess what, you can't pull that card. Not only are you a tremendously wealthy privileged white guy, you were also responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters of all time. You don't get to cry, or complain, or wish your life was normal again. Not until you fix your mess. And if you have to neglect your family, work yourself to ill health and never truly recover from it, that's exactly what you deserve.
In true middle class style, it's not gonna be so bad. Fuel is gonna be expensive as shit and our power bills are gonna look pretty tasty, but the creamy middle of society will survive. And that's really it, in the end, isn't it? We'll get by, life will continue to live in a quantum state of being awful and fantastic and we'll slowly get used to paying more for stuff. Ugh, if I was any more jaded I'd be a 'nam vet.
The Liberal Party lose this one on the mundane level of a piece of legislation they resisted passed, but they also lose it on bit of a personal level for me. Guys, please stop crowing about broken promises and the death of democracy, you're making no sense. The Labor Party pledged that there'd be no carbon tax under a Labor government, but we don't have a Labor government, we have a Labor-Greens coalition. The conditions which Labor put forward for there being no carbon tax were not met, no promises were broken. As for the whole "death of democracy" thing... didn't it pass on a majority vote? Oh, but it wasn't the citizens majority, regular people didn't get to vote... as they shouldn't have. You don't hold a massive, nationwide vote on every bill, it's not how representative government works. Stop playing to the general ignorance of people, Liberals. I know it's normally a legitimate political strategy, but in this case it's making you look bad. Er, worse.
Labor lose this one because the bill is a dud. It might offer some incentives to go green, but for the most part it's just gonna pass costs on to the consumer. I'm a consumer, so this pisses me off, but seriously, can we stop letting CEOs and massive corporations win? They don't need any help, they're doing great. They aren't "job creators" or however the Rand worshippers want to frame it, they don't need any more legs-up. Labor's reaction to their victory was pretty shameful, but hey, I don't expect class from a bunch of union heavies and their cronies, so that falls in the indifference pile.
Greens lose this one because they're showing just how much they fail as a left alternative. Any left-wing party worth its salt would have made the bill radically different, protecting consumers and making the incredibly rich big corporations wear it, but of course, in this centre-right government, that's a no-no. As an environmental party, Greens do fine, but for protecting socially liberal, economically left ideas and trying to bring a sense of rationality to an increasingly USA-esque government, they're just not cutting it.
Of course, it goes without saying that consumers lose this one, the costs get passed to them, but manufacturers lose this one too. There'll be layoffs, there'll be collapses and reshuffles, a few people with business degrees will be incredibly stressed, but they'll also be rich so screw them. I have no sympathy for guys like that, it's like when that Hayward wanker at BP kept crying and saying he just wanted his life to go back to normal... guess what, you can't pull that card. Not only are you a tremendously wealthy privileged white guy, you were also responsible for one of the worst environmental disasters of all time. You don't get to cry, or complain, or wish your life was normal again. Not until you fix your mess. And if you have to neglect your family, work yourself to ill health and never truly recover from it, that's exactly what you deserve.
In true middle class style, it's not gonna be so bad. Fuel is gonna be expensive as shit and our power bills are gonna look pretty tasty, but the creamy middle of society will survive. And that's really it, in the end, isn't it? We'll get by, life will continue to live in a quantum state of being awful and fantastic and we'll slowly get used to paying more for stuff. Ugh, if I was any more jaded I'd be a 'nam vet.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Some Issues Are Really Complicated.
Here at Tuesday Night Wrist, sometimes we (I) make it seem like we (I) have all the answers. While this is the case a lot of the time, there are some things that aren't so clear cut as to be a case of "here's the problem, here's what we can do to solve it, here's why people who disagree are retarded." I hate those, they remind me that I don't have all the answers.
I didn't really want to write in this vein, because it's far more ponderous and thoughtful than what you usually get here, but a friend suggested I use it as a tool to try and get some clarity into my opinions, and hell, it might get other people thinking too, who knows. Weirder things have happened. So, here goes: My internal conflict on the subject of decriminalised and regulated legal prostitution.
First things first, some basics. 1) It's not the oldest industry in the world, agriculture is. Sex predates agriculture, but it doesn't predate simple economic systems. Besides, even if it was the oldest industry (which it isn't), who cares? Religion is really old, and we all know how I feel about that. 2) I'm not a radical feminist or anything, I'm not one of those "all sex is rape!" nutjobs. I respect some of their reasoning, but to call all penetrative sex between a man and a woman "rape" is such an incredibly long bow to draw, I can't be bothered with it. I'm not gonna use the "well I've had sex with a girl and I'm not a rapist!" canard, but to claim that all women are being forced into sex by society is... an oversimplification. 3) I'm certainly not torn about the issue because I'm an anti-sex conservative prude. Seriously, it's 2011, fuck whatever consenting entity you like.
So, reasons why the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution would be a good thing; like drugs and gambling, sex is a thing all people (to some extent) do. It's not dirty and to be shunned, just like it's not a sacred expression of love between a man and a woman or whatever the fuck Disney has girls believing now. Let's be 100% realistic here, the human race has sex with itself a lot, very regularly, for lots of different reasons. In fact, think about it; the odds favour at least two of your Facebook friends are having sex right now. One big reason that prostitution is seen as such a taboo is because sex itself is taboo, but the sex taboo is nonsense. So from that perspective, yes, it makes sense to decriminalise and regulate prostitution as a way of making sex and sexual matters less of a social hot-button.
Also, while we're being honest with ourselves, let's all just admit right now; some people go to prostitutes. I'm not saying you do, or that you should, but some people do. Not everyone who goes to prostitutes are creeps or weirdos or rapists who haven't snapped yet, or anything like that. Some people just want to trade money for sex. I'm not gonna make a moral judgement either way (but as you may have guessed, my opinion is the standard "as long as they're both consenting adults..." stuff), and realistically, the whole "why would you sell your dignity!?" thing smacks of total bullshit. If you're worried about dignity, would you ever do a service job? Or a cleaning job? Or any job where you have to wear a silly hat or uniform? The fact is, the vast majority of jobs are paying you to do something that taxes your dignity and your sanity. Having sex for reasons other than lust, love or fondness is less dignified than cleaning toilets? I've done both, and I'd much rather be having crappy sex than cleaning toilets any fucking day. Yes, I realise that prostitutes aren't just having crappy sex, they're having regular sex with lots of different people in a fashion that may be unpleasant, but I maintain that in terms of undignified and taxing work, there are a fair few jobs that'd rank as just as or more unpleasant than work in the sex industry.
So, why don't I use the word "legalised"? Because that's not what the issue is. Some places have it such that it's not illegal to be a prostitute but it is illegal to solicit one. While I think that this goes some way to weeding out the creeps and treats the women involved more like citizens and less like criminals, it still carries a certain degree of social taboo. Decriminalised and regulated means that it will not be a crime to partake on either side, but it will be monitored in such a way to ensure the safety of everyone involved. John registration feels slightly Big Brother-y to me, but some sort of system wherein all activities can be made sure to be clean and, you know, not completely degrading or unpleasant for the prostitute, man or woman, is something I can get behind.
Now, after all that, it seems like I'd be all for the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution, but the thing is, I'm not. These are less clear cut, but I can't be a wholehearted supporter of that cause while these things are still rattling around in my head.
First of all, a guest lecturer in a journalism unit very much put me in my place about the topic. She was quite a horrendous bitch on virtually every other topic, but when I asked her why it wouldn't help the working women (and I guess men by proxy) to make them less demonised and unprotected, her answer surprised me to the point of speechlessness. I can't remember her exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "what made you think that is what makes them unsafe in the first place?" She elaborated on this by explaining that what really makes prostitution so dangerous is what the girls involved are asked to do; it's not always "regular" sex. She had interviewed a lot of different working girls, all the way from upper class call girls to trafficked sex workers, and a surprising majority of them had claimed that a considerable percentage of their clients had wives or girlfriends. Further, the problem wasn't that they couldn't "get any". The problem was that the "any" they wanted wasn't the "any" their partners wanted to give; it was unprotected, anal, dangerous, dominating, you get the picture. The problem is, in short, that prostitutes aren't used as "sex workers" but "sex whipping boys" who, by virtue of their job, HAVE to consent to situations that put them in real danger. I don't have an answer as to how to stop this, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed before prostitution can be made "safe."
Further, a feminist reading of the situation in general reveals a few interesting ideas. Please try not to get turned off by the phrase "patriarchal construct," I promise I'm going somewhere with this. You could make the argument that the idea of "sex as necessary" is a social construct in some small way, because physiologically, it's kinda not. Yes, humans (particularly males) do need some form of sexual release, but masturbation fills that role. We need companionship, but realistically, prostitution doesn't fill that. Escorts could, possibly, but it's largely a social problem that is rooted in the inherent alienation and impersonal nature that is a part of modern life. The idea that, in order to be happy and relaxed, we MUST bonk another person no matter the cost is... well, it's crazy. There are celibate folks that have pretty much proved that you don't have to, and yet it's used as a justification as to why, in the end, it's OK to be sex obsessed.
For the record, I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm somehow above all this. Yeah, I've been known to objectify women (I challenge anyone to tell me, honestly, that they haven't ogled a member of the gender they're attracted to. If you have, that's objectifying. You don't stare at a lady's arse thinking "fuck, I'd love a conversation with her") and I'm a fan of sex. Sex is great fun. I'm comfortable with saying "society's view of sex is pretty warped" but if you were to ask me how, or why, I couldn't give you a straight answer. I hope this stuff gets people thinking, but right now I'm just bummed that I feel more confused than before. How depressing.
I didn't really want to write in this vein, because it's far more ponderous and thoughtful than what you usually get here, but a friend suggested I use it as a tool to try and get some clarity into my opinions, and hell, it might get other people thinking too, who knows. Weirder things have happened. So, here goes: My internal conflict on the subject of decriminalised and regulated legal prostitution.
First things first, some basics. 1) It's not the oldest industry in the world, agriculture is. Sex predates agriculture, but it doesn't predate simple economic systems. Besides, even if it was the oldest industry (which it isn't), who cares? Religion is really old, and we all know how I feel about that. 2) I'm not a radical feminist or anything, I'm not one of those "all sex is rape!" nutjobs. I respect some of their reasoning, but to call all penetrative sex between a man and a woman "rape" is such an incredibly long bow to draw, I can't be bothered with it. I'm not gonna use the "well I've had sex with a girl and I'm not a rapist!" canard, but to claim that all women are being forced into sex by society is... an oversimplification. 3) I'm certainly not torn about the issue because I'm an anti-sex conservative prude. Seriously, it's 2011, fuck whatever consenting entity you like.
So, reasons why the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution would be a good thing; like drugs and gambling, sex is a thing all people (to some extent) do. It's not dirty and to be shunned, just like it's not a sacred expression of love between a man and a woman or whatever the fuck Disney has girls believing now. Let's be 100% realistic here, the human race has sex with itself a lot, very regularly, for lots of different reasons. In fact, think about it; the odds favour at least two of your Facebook friends are having sex right now. One big reason that prostitution is seen as such a taboo is because sex itself is taboo, but the sex taboo is nonsense. So from that perspective, yes, it makes sense to decriminalise and regulate prostitution as a way of making sex and sexual matters less of a social hot-button.
Also, while we're being honest with ourselves, let's all just admit right now; some people go to prostitutes. I'm not saying you do, or that you should, but some people do. Not everyone who goes to prostitutes are creeps or weirdos or rapists who haven't snapped yet, or anything like that. Some people just want to trade money for sex. I'm not gonna make a moral judgement either way (but as you may have guessed, my opinion is the standard "as long as they're both consenting adults..." stuff), and realistically, the whole "why would you sell your dignity!?" thing smacks of total bullshit. If you're worried about dignity, would you ever do a service job? Or a cleaning job? Or any job where you have to wear a silly hat or uniform? The fact is, the vast majority of jobs are paying you to do something that taxes your dignity and your sanity. Having sex for reasons other than lust, love or fondness is less dignified than cleaning toilets? I've done both, and I'd much rather be having crappy sex than cleaning toilets any fucking day. Yes, I realise that prostitutes aren't just having crappy sex, they're having regular sex with lots of different people in a fashion that may be unpleasant, but I maintain that in terms of undignified and taxing work, there are a fair few jobs that'd rank as just as or more unpleasant than work in the sex industry.
So, why don't I use the word "legalised"? Because that's not what the issue is. Some places have it such that it's not illegal to be a prostitute but it is illegal to solicit one. While I think that this goes some way to weeding out the creeps and treats the women involved more like citizens and less like criminals, it still carries a certain degree of social taboo. Decriminalised and regulated means that it will not be a crime to partake on either side, but it will be monitored in such a way to ensure the safety of everyone involved. John registration feels slightly Big Brother-y to me, but some sort of system wherein all activities can be made sure to be clean and, you know, not completely degrading or unpleasant for the prostitute, man or woman, is something I can get behind.
Now, after all that, it seems like I'd be all for the decriminalisation and regulation of prostitution, but the thing is, I'm not. These are less clear cut, but I can't be a wholehearted supporter of that cause while these things are still rattling around in my head.
First of all, a guest lecturer in a journalism unit very much put me in my place about the topic. She was quite a horrendous bitch on virtually every other topic, but when I asked her why it wouldn't help the working women (and I guess men by proxy) to make them less demonised and unprotected, her answer surprised me to the point of speechlessness. I can't remember her exact wording, but it was something along the lines of "what made you think that is what makes them unsafe in the first place?" She elaborated on this by explaining that what really makes prostitution so dangerous is what the girls involved are asked to do; it's not always "regular" sex. She had interviewed a lot of different working girls, all the way from upper class call girls to trafficked sex workers, and a surprising majority of them had claimed that a considerable percentage of their clients had wives or girlfriends. Further, the problem wasn't that they couldn't "get any". The problem was that the "any" they wanted wasn't the "any" their partners wanted to give; it was unprotected, anal, dangerous, dominating, you get the picture. The problem is, in short, that prostitutes aren't used as "sex workers" but "sex whipping boys" who, by virtue of their job, HAVE to consent to situations that put them in real danger. I don't have an answer as to how to stop this, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed before prostitution can be made "safe."
Further, a feminist reading of the situation in general reveals a few interesting ideas. Please try not to get turned off by the phrase "patriarchal construct," I promise I'm going somewhere with this. You could make the argument that the idea of "sex as necessary" is a social construct in some small way, because physiologically, it's kinda not. Yes, humans (particularly males) do need some form of sexual release, but masturbation fills that role. We need companionship, but realistically, prostitution doesn't fill that. Escorts could, possibly, but it's largely a social problem that is rooted in the inherent alienation and impersonal nature that is a part of modern life. The idea that, in order to be happy and relaxed, we MUST bonk another person no matter the cost is... well, it's crazy. There are celibate folks that have pretty much proved that you don't have to, and yet it's used as a justification as to why, in the end, it's OK to be sex obsessed.
For the record, I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm somehow above all this. Yeah, I've been known to objectify women (I challenge anyone to tell me, honestly, that they haven't ogled a member of the gender they're attracted to. If you have, that's objectifying. You don't stare at a lady's arse thinking "fuck, I'd love a conversation with her") and I'm a fan of sex. Sex is great fun. I'm comfortable with saying "society's view of sex is pretty warped" but if you were to ask me how, or why, I couldn't give you a straight answer. I hope this stuff gets people thinking, but right now I'm just bummed that I feel more confused than before. How depressing.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Just Let Them Have The Fucking Cigarettes.
I don't want to make a big deal out of this, because I'm already a big smelly liberal and frankly I'm a little too frazzled to really make this coherent, but can we all admit, this isn't even about cigarettes anymore?
For the uninitiated, turns out the Federal Government is paying for asylum seekers' cigarettes while they're in detention. And this has got some people all annoyed on both sides of the fence. Consider this an open letter:
Anti smoking people, please stop. You've all got to be the most sanctimonious, holier than thou group of pricks in existence. Let's be totally clear, we all know the risks. People are well aware of just how bad smoking is for you, it's been public knowledge for sometime. Cigarette companies can't advertise, they have to display horrendous images on their packaging, which is soon to be made plain by some stupid law. Don't you think you've done enough? I know what you're thinking, "we haven't done enough until no-one smokes!" but seriously, is that even your call? Yeah, yeah, I know, liberal scum, but seriously, get off your high horse. You have as little right to tell someone to stop smoking as they have to tell you to piss off if your kid was crying right next to them or you were drinking a Red Bull. For the record, I hate both those things, but if it's happening near me, I'll move. Why? Because I respect your rights. Evidently you don't do the same.
Smokers complaining about how much they have to pay while these dirty brown people get them for free... guys, some compassion, please? Normally I'd just tear you down, call you morons, whatever, but this time around, I just can't. Never mind the simple fact that you have enough disposable income to afford smokes in the first place which makes you better off than a disturbingly large percentage of the rest of the world, but do you really reckon a free packet of Winnie Blues makes them feel all that better about what they've just been through? I realise this is the equivalent of banging my head against a racist brick wall here but it's just so exasperating. Living your whole life in a first world country doesn't make it OK to just sidestep having a sense of perspective.
Man, I'm gonna go on record here and say I'm proud of the government on this one. This is a decision that helps no-one but the asylum seekers. I didn't think our government worked that way, and to see just a shred of shared humanity in this otherwise messy issue brings a smile to my face.
For the uninitiated, turns out the Federal Government is paying for asylum seekers' cigarettes while they're in detention. And this has got some people all annoyed on both sides of the fence. Consider this an open letter:
Anti smoking people, please stop. You've all got to be the most sanctimonious, holier than thou group of pricks in existence. Let's be totally clear, we all know the risks. People are well aware of just how bad smoking is for you, it's been public knowledge for sometime. Cigarette companies can't advertise, they have to display horrendous images on their packaging, which is soon to be made plain by some stupid law. Don't you think you've done enough? I know what you're thinking, "we haven't done enough until no-one smokes!" but seriously, is that even your call? Yeah, yeah, I know, liberal scum, but seriously, get off your high horse. You have as little right to tell someone to stop smoking as they have to tell you to piss off if your kid was crying right next to them or you were drinking a Red Bull. For the record, I hate both those things, but if it's happening near me, I'll move. Why? Because I respect your rights. Evidently you don't do the same.
Smokers complaining about how much they have to pay while these dirty brown people get them for free... guys, some compassion, please? Normally I'd just tear you down, call you morons, whatever, but this time around, I just can't. Never mind the simple fact that you have enough disposable income to afford smokes in the first place which makes you better off than a disturbingly large percentage of the rest of the world, but do you really reckon a free packet of Winnie Blues makes them feel all that better about what they've just been through? I realise this is the equivalent of banging my head against a racist brick wall here but it's just so exasperating. Living your whole life in a first world country doesn't make it OK to just sidestep having a sense of perspective.
Man, I'm gonna go on record here and say I'm proud of the government on this one. This is a decision that helps no-one but the asylum seekers. I didn't think our government worked that way, and to see just a shred of shared humanity in this otherwise messy issue brings a smile to my face.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Over-Empathy
I was initially unsure if there'd even be a post this week, what with me being lazy and leaving some rather large assignments until the last minute, but I recently suffered from an emotion, so there's a post here. It goes up early because one should make hay while the sun shines.
There are so many problems with the world, on every level. Take the well-informed individual; this person will suffer personal problems, that's a given. Everyone has them. Then, there's immediate demands on his/her time, like work or study or other commitments that take up a certain amount of mental energy. Then there's larger problems, like the overall state of his or her locality, city, country, etc. It's impossible to be well-informed and not have some gripe about the way society is run. Then there's global issues. And the universal issues like "what the hell is the deal with the universe?" If you are anywhere near sensitive as well as being well-informed, this does weigh on your mind. In the interest of my own mental health, here's a breakdown of my layer-cake of gripes. Some details left joyously non-specific to make me seem less like a whiny bitch.
I somehow manage to possess two of the most at-odds personality quirks in the universe; I automatically assume everybody I know has a dim view of me, only putting up with me rather than legitimately enjoying my company AND it bothers me if I'm not a main source of the happiness of the people I know and care about. So, yeah, needless to say, it can be a tad confusing. I have no idea why this is bothering me now because, at present, my life is going pretty good, but for some reason it is. I suppose all I can hope for is that the almost constant stream of support I get from my large group of very good friends will somehow convince me I'm an alright guy. Fingers crossed.
This semester of university will not defeat me, no sir. I may be doing some units that are, frankly, a terrible fit for me (Sports Journalism? What the hell was I thinking? Admittedly the actual assignments don't seem so bad, I enjoyed covering the Football West State League Final but I haven't gotten my mark back yet so who knows how this is gonna go) and most of them demand lots of small assignments, which is historically my undoing, what with my overwhelming laziness and lack of organisation, but I will destroy it. I'm smarter than this, just you watch. I'm gonna bust out those assignments in my most awesome, "I don't need to study because I've been pretentious and culturally aware enough to wander through a Communications degree with a minimum of effort since as long as I can remember and milking natural talents is friggin' boss" way. Watch this space.
Australian politics, at this stage in time, could pretty accurately be described as the world's most banal shitstorm. There are some things going on tat should probably get people riled up in a pretty serious way:
1) The Labor Party playing fast and loose with their own leadership is a joke. As if everybody with a pulse didn't already know that they're just pawns for union big-boys anyway, the idea of ousting a leader for one much more malleable to the whims of the big players behind the scenes without the input of the people is just... disrespectful? Our first batch of Gillard was one we (as a nation) didn't vote for, and we've only ourselves to blame for the second. If Rudd gets re-inserted into the leadership before the next election rolls around, there's the distinct possibility Labor will lose every last ounce of credibility they've ever had.
2) When Tony Abbott has a higher approval rating than whatever opposition he's up against, you know we're fucked. Let me make this totally clear: Tony Abbott is less preferable than basically anyone short of Josef Mengele. This is a man who's refutation of anthropic climate change was "It was hotter in the time of Jesus of Nazareth." Wait, what? Based on what, exactly? Abbott is a credulous, ill-informed theocratic numbskull who would be more at home in the red states of America than he is in the (somewhat) moderate nation of Australia.
3) Speaking of "moderate," how is gay marriage still a big issue? I thought we'd fucking covered this. The research does exist, gays won, they aren't bad people.
4) That "Fuck Off We're Full" isn't just a racist catch-cry and that it honestly represents what both major parties effectively feel about immigration blows my mind. We aren't full, we're underpopulated, do some reading.
5) There's no liberal left wing option that isn't currently spitting in the ocean or turning into a party I really don't like. I'm looking at you, Greens.
These are issues worth considering. Economically, I know people all across the board and I can generally respect their opinions, but be honest, do you know any legitimate conservatives? Do you know anyone who, unapologetically, wants to return to a society modelled after the 1950's with all our morality and most of our laws drawn from The Bible? And not the Christian Bible, but the Bible that only exists in the minds of xenophobic white Americans? I didn't think so. So why, pray tell, do the two major parties in this country feel the need to pander to this mindset? It boggles my fucking mind. Unfortunately, no one is really angry about just how retarded our government is, and will inevitably be, because compulsory voting prevents us from really going off the deep-end like the USA. So we're all kinda tolerating our "OK-but-really-not-great" system because it's too hard to change but it's unlikely to get worse. What awesome fun that is.
Oh man, American politics, you make me smile. Republican candidates, you're the comedy superteam of the century, it's brilliant. Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Perry, Mr. Santorum.... thank you. You've made Stephen Colbert pretty much obsolete, because between you guys and Glenn Beck's steadily decaying mental state, it's impossible to lampoon right-wing ideology any more. It worries me that you may actually believe those things you say, but I'm almost certain Obama will win so that dulls that. Seriously though, the nation is in incredible debt and you guys want to cut taxes, continue to fund an unwinnable war of ideology for a resource that is destroying the planet (except you don't believe it is) all the while going against centuries of scientific research and discovery in your claim that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old? This shit is gonna be hilarious, I can't wait for acts two and three. Oh, and the rest: Ron Paul; the gold standard? Really? It's only an outdated and archaic (almost like you) system that'll probably screw over the world economy, but hey, at least it's shiny, right? Jon Huntsman, Jr.; At least Obama likes you, right? Being the Democrat's Republican must be weird. Tim Pawlenty; Awwww, you seemed nice. Probably the guy I hated the least. Shame that me being ambivalent to your existence means you probably have none of the qualities the Tea Party is looking for. Brevity aside, keep your eyes peeled, this may be the last US President we ever see. Not kidding.
Standard tripe about people's beliefs being different from mine and casting doubt on the nature of the universe as a whole. You know, I've stopped worrying about what it is you say you believe and more about what you actually say. This isn't directed at anyone in particular but more and more I find that some people who tout themselves as "atheists," "skeptics" or "liberals" actually hold some pretty disrespectful or nonsensical beliefs, while some people who say they're religious, or more conservative, or spiritual or whatever are really much more on my side. This isn't a case of me getting terms confused, I'm very, VERY well versed on what it means to be atheist, liberal, skeptical, left wing, naturalist, whatever. This is a case of people latching onto terms that they think applies to them, or that they heard somewhere, and just going with it, rather than actually stopping and thinking. I mean, you can't call yourself a liberal and then say that you think gay people are immoral, wrong and shouldn't be allowed to be gay. You're allowed to think that, but you're definitely not a liberal. By that same token, you're not a conservative if you believe the government has no place telling people what they can and cannot do in their private, personal lives as long as they don't hurt anyone else. You've gotten your terms mixed up. People conflate right-wing and conservative all the time because it's a very common pairing, ditto left-wing and liberal, but the fact of the matter is, you can be anywhere on either axis, they're your beliefs. You don't have to give them a name to legitimise them, although you should probably be prepared to defend them if they come up.
Wow, that felt great to get all out, it's like vomiting after too much booze to avoid a hangover. Except in this case, the vomiting is voicing my opinions, the booze is social concerns and the hangover is probably something like burnout or depression. Aaaaah strained metaphors, you are the secret ingredient to my crappy writing.
There are so many problems with the world, on every level. Take the well-informed individual; this person will suffer personal problems, that's a given. Everyone has them. Then, there's immediate demands on his/her time, like work or study or other commitments that take up a certain amount of mental energy. Then there's larger problems, like the overall state of his or her locality, city, country, etc. It's impossible to be well-informed and not have some gripe about the way society is run. Then there's global issues. And the universal issues like "what the hell is the deal with the universe?" If you are anywhere near sensitive as well as being well-informed, this does weigh on your mind. In the interest of my own mental health, here's a breakdown of my layer-cake of gripes. Some details left joyously non-specific to make me seem less like a whiny bitch.
I somehow manage to possess two of the most at-odds personality quirks in the universe; I automatically assume everybody I know has a dim view of me, only putting up with me rather than legitimately enjoying my company AND it bothers me if I'm not a main source of the happiness of the people I know and care about. So, yeah, needless to say, it can be a tad confusing. I have no idea why this is bothering me now because, at present, my life is going pretty good, but for some reason it is. I suppose all I can hope for is that the almost constant stream of support I get from my large group of very good friends will somehow convince me I'm an alright guy. Fingers crossed.
This semester of university will not defeat me, no sir. I may be doing some units that are, frankly, a terrible fit for me (Sports Journalism? What the hell was I thinking? Admittedly the actual assignments don't seem so bad, I enjoyed covering the Football West State League Final but I haven't gotten my mark back yet so who knows how this is gonna go) and most of them demand lots of small assignments, which is historically my undoing, what with my overwhelming laziness and lack of organisation, but I will destroy it. I'm smarter than this, just you watch. I'm gonna bust out those assignments in my most awesome, "I don't need to study because I've been pretentious and culturally aware enough to wander through a Communications degree with a minimum of effort since as long as I can remember and milking natural talents is friggin' boss" way. Watch this space.
Australian politics, at this stage in time, could pretty accurately be described as the world's most banal shitstorm. There are some things going on tat should probably get people riled up in a pretty serious way:
1) The Labor Party playing fast and loose with their own leadership is a joke. As if everybody with a pulse didn't already know that they're just pawns for union big-boys anyway, the idea of ousting a leader for one much more malleable to the whims of the big players behind the scenes without the input of the people is just... disrespectful? Our first batch of Gillard was one we (as a nation) didn't vote for, and we've only ourselves to blame for the second. If Rudd gets re-inserted into the leadership before the next election rolls around, there's the distinct possibility Labor will lose every last ounce of credibility they've ever had.
2) When Tony Abbott has a higher approval rating than whatever opposition he's up against, you know we're fucked. Let me make this totally clear: Tony Abbott is less preferable than basically anyone short of Josef Mengele. This is a man who's refutation of anthropic climate change was "It was hotter in the time of Jesus of Nazareth." Wait, what? Based on what, exactly? Abbott is a credulous, ill-informed theocratic numbskull who would be more at home in the red states of America than he is in the (somewhat) moderate nation of Australia.
3) Speaking of "moderate," how is gay marriage still a big issue? I thought we'd fucking covered this. The research does exist, gays won, they aren't bad people.
4) That "Fuck Off We're Full" isn't just a racist catch-cry and that it honestly represents what both major parties effectively feel about immigration blows my mind. We aren't full, we're underpopulated, do some reading.
5) There's no liberal left wing option that isn't currently spitting in the ocean or turning into a party I really don't like. I'm looking at you, Greens.
These are issues worth considering. Economically, I know people all across the board and I can generally respect their opinions, but be honest, do you know any legitimate conservatives? Do you know anyone who, unapologetically, wants to return to a society modelled after the 1950's with all our morality and most of our laws drawn from The Bible? And not the Christian Bible, but the Bible that only exists in the minds of xenophobic white Americans? I didn't think so. So why, pray tell, do the two major parties in this country feel the need to pander to this mindset? It boggles my fucking mind. Unfortunately, no one is really angry about just how retarded our government is, and will inevitably be, because compulsory voting prevents us from really going off the deep-end like the USA. So we're all kinda tolerating our "OK-but-really-not-great" system because it's too hard to change but it's unlikely to get worse. What awesome fun that is.
Oh man, American politics, you make me smile. Republican candidates, you're the comedy superteam of the century, it's brilliant. Mrs. Bachmann, Mr. Perry, Mr. Santorum.... thank you. You've made Stephen Colbert pretty much obsolete, because between you guys and Glenn Beck's steadily decaying mental state, it's impossible to lampoon right-wing ideology any more. It worries me that you may actually believe those things you say, but I'm almost certain Obama will win so that dulls that. Seriously though, the nation is in incredible debt and you guys want to cut taxes, continue to fund an unwinnable war of ideology for a resource that is destroying the planet (except you don't believe it is) all the while going against centuries of scientific research and discovery in your claim that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old? This shit is gonna be hilarious, I can't wait for acts two and three. Oh, and the rest: Ron Paul; the gold standard? Really? It's only an outdated and archaic (almost like you) system that'll probably screw over the world economy, but hey, at least it's shiny, right? Jon Huntsman, Jr.; At least Obama likes you, right? Being the Democrat's Republican must be weird. Tim Pawlenty; Awwww, you seemed nice. Probably the guy I hated the least. Shame that me being ambivalent to your existence means you probably have none of the qualities the Tea Party is looking for. Brevity aside, keep your eyes peeled, this may be the last US President we ever see. Not kidding.
Standard tripe about people's beliefs being different from mine and casting doubt on the nature of the universe as a whole. You know, I've stopped worrying about what it is you say you believe and more about what you actually say. This isn't directed at anyone in particular but more and more I find that some people who tout themselves as "atheists," "skeptics" or "liberals" actually hold some pretty disrespectful or nonsensical beliefs, while some people who say they're religious, or more conservative, or spiritual or whatever are really much more on my side. This isn't a case of me getting terms confused, I'm very, VERY well versed on what it means to be atheist, liberal, skeptical, left wing, naturalist, whatever. This is a case of people latching onto terms that they think applies to them, or that they heard somewhere, and just going with it, rather than actually stopping and thinking. I mean, you can't call yourself a liberal and then say that you think gay people are immoral, wrong and shouldn't be allowed to be gay. You're allowed to think that, but you're definitely not a liberal. By that same token, you're not a conservative if you believe the government has no place telling people what they can and cannot do in their private, personal lives as long as they don't hurt anyone else. You've gotten your terms mixed up. People conflate right-wing and conservative all the time because it's a very common pairing, ditto left-wing and liberal, but the fact of the matter is, you can be anywhere on either axis, they're your beliefs. You don't have to give them a name to legitimise them, although you should probably be prepared to defend them if they come up.
Wow, that felt great to get all out, it's like vomiting after too much booze to avoid a hangover. Except in this case, the vomiting is voicing my opinions, the booze is social concerns and the hangover is probably something like burnout or depression. Aaaaah strained metaphors, you are the secret ingredient to my crappy writing.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Story Time!
I used to study mining engineering at the University of Western Australia. It's a big, lovely campus full of intellectual snobs, rich kids and high schoolers who didn't know what they wanted to do with their lives except make money. It's also is the place where I met some of the best friends I have, so I guess it goes both ways.
While studying there, I used to spend some of my breaks in the co-op book shop, just reading any random thing in the section at the very back. The reason for this was two-fold; I'm pretty ADD so I couldn't commit to studying for any long period of time and there was no free internet access so it was the best place to just read whatever and let my mind wander, and also because no-one would scold me for reading and not buying anything because no-one would see me. I usually just flipped through anything that looked interesting, reading odd pages here and there, but I remember very clearly once reading an entire book, cover to cover, one fateful afternoon. The book was called The Underachiever's Manifesto and it would have to rank as one of the most philosophically spot-on books I've ever read. Every word just dripped with truth, it was beautiful.
The underlying message of the book was this; We're all working too hard, we've made a fetish of the overachiever. We've come to idolise those who work their lives away achieving everything that everyone else wants them to do, and this is more responsible for the health problems and relationship breakdowns in the first world than anything else.
Think about this for a while. We're expected to take our work home with us at school, at university and in our careers. We're expected to cherish overtime. It's frowned upon to take breaks and seen as lazy to not be constantly thinking about the demands on you. Anything that could harm our future employment prospects is advised against, regardless of how fulfilling or entertaining it is. Our entire lives are built around the expenditure of our energy to hoard goods and expend more energy keeping the system going.
I'm not living in a naive fantasy world, I know that in reality you need money to live. This is an inescapable fact of existence, death and taxes, all that jazz. However, I find it incredibly bizarre at just how pervasive the "live to work" idea really is. We can convince ourselves that we "work to live" but realistically, this isn't true. Very few people can honestly say that they fit their work around their life. This is messed up on a fair few levels.
Yeah, I'm a socialist. I do believe that all the work that needs to be done in order to give everyone an equal, high quality standard of life can be shared equally among all people. I do believe that striving to keep up with the Jones' is a culturally destructive practice. I do believe that some people's desire to be successful harms not only themselves, but others. There's a finite amount of money in the world (anyone who denies this doesn't know dick about economics. One unit of currency represents a percentage of the overall wealth of the nation. You can't just print more because it devalues the currency and screws everyone over, see German pre- and post-WW2) so in order for you to get rich, other people have to get poorer. Fact. Your desire to be a millionaire can effectively be translated into a desire to take the wealth from other people and put it in your pocket.
So, I've been called unambitious. Why? Apparently my goals in life are lazy. What goals, you ask? Work a job I don't hate (preferably like, and with any luck that'll happen), make enough to support myself and any dependents I may have in the future, own my own house and have enough time for my hobbies and friends. That doesn't strike me as too selfish, and with the exception of the first part (some jobs are shitty, but they do need doing), there is enough wealth in Australia for everyone to be able to do this. The problem is, when you start tacking more demands on top of this, it all starts to fall through.
If you want to own 5 properties, that's 4 properties at any given time that aren't being used by you, but are unavailable for purchase by anyone else. So you're fucking up the housing market and making it harder for people (especially young people. Like me, for example) to own their own home. And don't just say they should just work harder and make more money because, as we've discussed, not everyone can do that, by default. Not everyone can be rich.
The problem isn't that poor people are lazy and stupid. This is some bizarre, objectivist viewpoint that, for some reason, is really pervasive in right-wing philosophy. It's not grounded in reality, it's babies first philosophy for those who don't understand sociology or economics. Or empathy for that matter. The reason there's a massive wealth disparity in every country in the world, and in the world as a whole, is because in order for you to have more, someone has to have less. The problem is that people are greedy and want to one-up everyone else. This is childish and impossible.
The free-market is perfectly natural? How about go fuck yourself, you've demonstrated a brilliant lack of understanding on how society functions. Humans are a social species. The reason we have every advance ever is because human knowledge is collected and shared throughout the species. The reason early man flourished is because a group would take down a kill for the entire tribe to feast upon. The belief that humans are competitive and not co-operative is not only wrong, it's anti-science, anti-history and an ideology that sets back the human race's constant struggle for an easier existence with stubbornness and bullish ignorance. The belief that you, and you alone, are entitled to the sweat of your brow is anti-human and makes you a selfish douche that doesn't deserve to live. If you honestly believe in the awesome power of the individual and that your only goal should be to get as fat and wealthy as possible, get the fuck out of my society and my race, we don't want you. Everyone's sweat belongs to everyone.
I don't mean to get angry and ranty here, but I'm tired of selfish arseholes who get high off other people's shoulders all the while congratulating themselves and masturbating to their own brilliance, and I'm tired of being told that I'll have to work myself to death to be like them. Fuck that. We're all in this together, and you're not a genius visionary by trying to get ahead at the expense of others. You should be fucking thankful that natural selection stopped being relevant since we started engineering our own environments, because you're exactly the kind of selfish, self-destructive dickhead who'd leave the wider safety of society and forcibly remove themselves from the gene pool. Only now, you don't remove yourself from society, you just exploit it, you douche. You might be savvy, but you're also a self serving, unlikeable douche who deserves nothing but expulsion and censure. Fuck you, fuck overachievers that help them and fuck Republicans/Labour & Libs/Conservatives/every right wing party.
While studying there, I used to spend some of my breaks in the co-op book shop, just reading any random thing in the section at the very back. The reason for this was two-fold; I'm pretty ADD so I couldn't commit to studying for any long period of time and there was no free internet access so it was the best place to just read whatever and let my mind wander, and also because no-one would scold me for reading and not buying anything because no-one would see me. I usually just flipped through anything that looked interesting, reading odd pages here and there, but I remember very clearly once reading an entire book, cover to cover, one fateful afternoon. The book was called The Underachiever's Manifesto and it would have to rank as one of the most philosophically spot-on books I've ever read. Every word just dripped with truth, it was beautiful.
The underlying message of the book was this; We're all working too hard, we've made a fetish of the overachiever. We've come to idolise those who work their lives away achieving everything that everyone else wants them to do, and this is more responsible for the health problems and relationship breakdowns in the first world than anything else.
Think about this for a while. We're expected to take our work home with us at school, at university and in our careers. We're expected to cherish overtime. It's frowned upon to take breaks and seen as lazy to not be constantly thinking about the demands on you. Anything that could harm our future employment prospects is advised against, regardless of how fulfilling or entertaining it is. Our entire lives are built around the expenditure of our energy to hoard goods and expend more energy keeping the system going.
I'm not living in a naive fantasy world, I know that in reality you need money to live. This is an inescapable fact of existence, death and taxes, all that jazz. However, I find it incredibly bizarre at just how pervasive the "live to work" idea really is. We can convince ourselves that we "work to live" but realistically, this isn't true. Very few people can honestly say that they fit their work around their life. This is messed up on a fair few levels.
Yeah, I'm a socialist. I do believe that all the work that needs to be done in order to give everyone an equal, high quality standard of life can be shared equally among all people. I do believe that striving to keep up with the Jones' is a culturally destructive practice. I do believe that some people's desire to be successful harms not only themselves, but others. There's a finite amount of money in the world (anyone who denies this doesn't know dick about economics. One unit of currency represents a percentage of the overall wealth of the nation. You can't just print more because it devalues the currency and screws everyone over, see German pre- and post-WW2) so in order for you to get rich, other people have to get poorer. Fact. Your desire to be a millionaire can effectively be translated into a desire to take the wealth from other people and put it in your pocket.
So, I've been called unambitious. Why? Apparently my goals in life are lazy. What goals, you ask? Work a job I don't hate (preferably like, and with any luck that'll happen), make enough to support myself and any dependents I may have in the future, own my own house and have enough time for my hobbies and friends. That doesn't strike me as too selfish, and with the exception of the first part (some jobs are shitty, but they do need doing), there is enough wealth in Australia for everyone to be able to do this. The problem is, when you start tacking more demands on top of this, it all starts to fall through.
If you want to own 5 properties, that's 4 properties at any given time that aren't being used by you, but are unavailable for purchase by anyone else. So you're fucking up the housing market and making it harder for people (especially young people. Like me, for example) to own their own home. And don't just say they should just work harder and make more money because, as we've discussed, not everyone can do that, by default. Not everyone can be rich.
The problem isn't that poor people are lazy and stupid. This is some bizarre, objectivist viewpoint that, for some reason, is really pervasive in right-wing philosophy. It's not grounded in reality, it's babies first philosophy for those who don't understand sociology or economics. Or empathy for that matter. The reason there's a massive wealth disparity in every country in the world, and in the world as a whole, is because in order for you to have more, someone has to have less. The problem is that people are greedy and want to one-up everyone else. This is childish and impossible.
The free-market is perfectly natural? How about go fuck yourself, you've demonstrated a brilliant lack of understanding on how society functions. Humans are a social species. The reason we have every advance ever is because human knowledge is collected and shared throughout the species. The reason early man flourished is because a group would take down a kill for the entire tribe to feast upon. The belief that humans are competitive and not co-operative is not only wrong, it's anti-science, anti-history and an ideology that sets back the human race's constant struggle for an easier existence with stubbornness and bullish ignorance. The belief that you, and you alone, are entitled to the sweat of your brow is anti-human and makes you a selfish douche that doesn't deserve to live. If you honestly believe in the awesome power of the individual and that your only goal should be to get as fat and wealthy as possible, get the fuck out of my society and my race, we don't want you. Everyone's sweat belongs to everyone.
I don't mean to get angry and ranty here, but I'm tired of selfish arseholes who get high off other people's shoulders all the while congratulating themselves and masturbating to their own brilliance, and I'm tired of being told that I'll have to work myself to death to be like them. Fuck that. We're all in this together, and you're not a genius visionary by trying to get ahead at the expense of others. You should be fucking thankful that natural selection stopped being relevant since we started engineering our own environments, because you're exactly the kind of selfish, self-destructive dickhead who'd leave the wider safety of society and forcibly remove themselves from the gene pool. Only now, you don't remove yourself from society, you just exploit it, you douche. You might be savvy, but you're also a self serving, unlikeable douche who deserves nothing but expulsion and censure. Fuck you, fuck overachievers that help them and fuck Republicans/Labour & Libs/Conservatives/every right wing party.
Monday, September 26, 2011
The Last Whiny Man Harps On
I hate being wrong, it really gets to me. It mostly gets to me because my view of reality is the single greatest view there is, and anything that is inconsistent with my view of reality is in some way flawed, substandard or just plain unpleasant. So yeah, being wrong isn't a great thing for me. But what's even worse is when other people are right. I don't mean in the "molecular biologist knows more about cell mitosis than I do" way, I mean more in the "some stupid unfounded claim happens to be true via fluke and now the person thinks they're a genius" way.
I refuse to play poker with people who don't understand statistics for just that reason. "Oh, you should just play every hand, if you fold you've automatically lost!" No, wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You scurry away to save your pennies for when you have a good hand... ugh, can't be bothered explaining it. It's the kind of person that goes all in on nothing then rivers a straight or something and now they think that they just know poker, when really their approach was completely and totally stupid and the odds were ridiculously high against them but they jagged a win despite being a retard! That kind of person, I hate those.
Can we make a distinction between being "right" and being "correct"? There isn't really a distinction in their current definitions, but for my purposes I'd like to make one: "Right" refers to your statement becoming true, while "correct" refers to your statement being informed, consistent with reality and not extraordinary or outlandish considering the outside stimulus. To use a silly example, say water was falling from the sky, which happens to be grey and cloudy. Now, you could make the claim that it's raining, or you could make the claim that a plane, carrying water, noiselessly exploded high in the atmosphere above you, obscured by the clouds, and that's where the water is coming from. At this point, these statements are both unproven, but one is more valid than the other, right? If it does come to pass that it was raining, you are both right and correct. If the plane scenario is the one that happened, however, you may be right, but you still aren't correct.
Following so far? The reason you aren't correct in the second instance is because you had no reason to believe that a water carrying plane noiselessly exploded above the clouds. There's no evidence of any of this; planes rarely (if ever, I can't think of a time where they would) carry large payloads of nothing but water, you have no aural, visible or tangible evidence that it's the case and the claim is quite extraordinary, relying on a lot of very specific things to happen at the the same time. So although your statement may in fact be consistent with what happened in reality at that exact moment, that doesn't make it correct, even though it's right.
Hypothetically, you could be correct, but not right at a given time. Flukes happen all the time. You may have quite luckily hit two sevens and a two to give you a full house out of the worst hand in a game of Texas Hold 'Em, (not explaining this all the way through, just take my word for it) but that doesn't mean you were smarter, or more insightful, or whatever. You got lucky. Hence, not correct, but still right. If you folded that hand, you'd be correct, but ultimately you wouldn't be right because in that specific instance playing the hand would have yielded a good result. However, you played the odds and should be commended. Well done, you were correct.
Unfortunately, this distinction between "right" and "correct" is a mere pipe dream for me, the man with the logic fetish. I suppose I'll have to remain content with... fuck, I couldn't think of a way to finish that sentence. Let's go with beer.
P.S. Yes, this post is a not-so-subtle dig at 2012 end-of-the-world believers, but it's been bugging me lately. I thought I was being all arty and metaphorical, but upon writing it I realise it's pretty obvious.
I refuse to play poker with people who don't understand statistics for just that reason. "Oh, you should just play every hand, if you fold you've automatically lost!" No, wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. You scurry away to save your pennies for when you have a good hand... ugh, can't be bothered explaining it. It's the kind of person that goes all in on nothing then rivers a straight or something and now they think that they just know poker, when really their approach was completely and totally stupid and the odds were ridiculously high against them but they jagged a win despite being a retard! That kind of person, I hate those.
Can we make a distinction between being "right" and being "correct"? There isn't really a distinction in their current definitions, but for my purposes I'd like to make one: "Right" refers to your statement becoming true, while "correct" refers to your statement being informed, consistent with reality and not extraordinary or outlandish considering the outside stimulus. To use a silly example, say water was falling from the sky, which happens to be grey and cloudy. Now, you could make the claim that it's raining, or you could make the claim that a plane, carrying water, noiselessly exploded high in the atmosphere above you, obscured by the clouds, and that's where the water is coming from. At this point, these statements are both unproven, but one is more valid than the other, right? If it does come to pass that it was raining, you are both right and correct. If the plane scenario is the one that happened, however, you may be right, but you still aren't correct.
Following so far? The reason you aren't correct in the second instance is because you had no reason to believe that a water carrying plane noiselessly exploded above the clouds. There's no evidence of any of this; planes rarely (if ever, I can't think of a time where they would) carry large payloads of nothing but water, you have no aural, visible or tangible evidence that it's the case and the claim is quite extraordinary, relying on a lot of very specific things to happen at the the same time. So although your statement may in fact be consistent with what happened in reality at that exact moment, that doesn't make it correct, even though it's right.
Hypothetically, you could be correct, but not right at a given time. Flukes happen all the time. You may have quite luckily hit two sevens and a two to give you a full house out of the worst hand in a game of Texas Hold 'Em, (not explaining this all the way through, just take my word for it) but that doesn't mean you were smarter, or more insightful, or whatever. You got lucky. Hence, not correct, but still right. If you folded that hand, you'd be correct, but ultimately you wouldn't be right because in that specific instance playing the hand would have yielded a good result. However, you played the odds and should be commended. Well done, you were correct.
Unfortunately, this distinction between "right" and "correct" is a mere pipe dream for me, the man with the logic fetish. I suppose I'll have to remain content with... fuck, I couldn't think of a way to finish that sentence. Let's go with beer.
P.S. Yes, this post is a not-so-subtle dig at 2012 end-of-the-world believers, but it's been bugging me lately. I thought I was being all arty and metaphorical, but upon writing it I realise it's pretty obvious.
Monday, September 19, 2011
You Aren't Funny.
Not everyone can be funny, just like not everyone can be tall. Some people have a speech impediment. Others have a particularly slow mind that isn't suited for the intellectual rigors of wit. This is not your fault, you just need to accept it and try not to be funny. You can still contribute to the conversation, I'm sure you're a lovely person, but your attempts at humour make me stop laughing. This is the opposite of what everyone wanted to happen.
The unfunny person will generally fall into one of these categories:
The "Way Too Obscure". This person is very knowledgeable about a subject (or group of subjects) and on their own may be very interesting. I have a few friends like this, and while they are a great time when we're both ranting about politics or anime (I don't actually know that much about anime) or the pre-amps of American made guitar amplifiers from the 60's (this is a thing that I talk about), when you get them into general company, they are mood poison. The constant attempts to tie it back to their area of knowledge alienate basically everyone else, but they stare at me with the little puppy dog eyes and so I have to give a courtesy chuckle even though I'm thinking "jesus, dude, pick your audience."
The "Way Too Intense". This person gives a shit about EVERYTHING. They have endless reserves of enthusiasm and interest for any little thing that comes up, and try very hard to get everyone else feeling just as fired up as they are. This is the kind of person that screams "FUCK YEAH!" in a quiet pub when you mention you're grabbing crisps. No matter how much you try to indicate that this is neither the time nor the place for Mexican waves, the "Way Too Intense" will try to turn everything into a cause for celebration, from the fact that you agree on some innocuous piece of trivia to the arrival of a drink at the table. Soon after, no-one else you are with will have energy for any conversation at all, because any slight point of interest will set the foghorn off.
The "Book of Quotes". You know this guy. This guy watches television. And movies. Lots of them. Based on their contributions to every conversation ever, this is all they do. Talking about politics? Simpsons quote. Talking about science? Hangover quote. Talking about how much you hate people that endlessly quote movies and shows rather than coming up with their own contribution to the discourse in a vain attempt to appear intelligent and culturally aware but really they just come off as derivative and thoughtless because half the time the quote isn't even relevant or insightful? Monty Python quote.
The "A Little Too Rude". This person doesn't quite know where the line is, but that won't stop them making a dead baby joke at your Nan's birthday. Or telling everyone about that time they got really drunk and forgot to wear a condom, but it was OK because he pulled out in time in a crowded restaurant. This person makes you want to curl up into the foetal position until the awkwardness goes away forever.
The "Annoying Voice". This person has an annoying voice. Nothing they say is funny or interesting because they have an annoying voice.
The "Poor Timing". This person may be funny if they weren't just that little bit off the mark. Maybe the conversation had just moved on and it's an awkward throwback. Maybe they said something predicting where the conversation was going before it got there. Whatever the reason, this terminally rhythm-free dolt will disrupt the internal flow of any conversation they're a part of, making everyone they're around have to try a little harder just to keep the conversation running.
Think about anyone you know that is terminally unfunny. They fit into one (or more) of these categories, without fail. Or they will now, at least, because you won't be able to stop thinking about what kind of unfunny they are. My work here is done.
The unfunny person will generally fall into one of these categories:
The "Way Too Obscure". This person is very knowledgeable about a subject (or group of subjects) and on their own may be very interesting. I have a few friends like this, and while they are a great time when we're both ranting about politics or anime (I don't actually know that much about anime) or the pre-amps of American made guitar amplifiers from the 60's (this is a thing that I talk about), when you get them into general company, they are mood poison. The constant attempts to tie it back to their area of knowledge alienate basically everyone else, but they stare at me with the little puppy dog eyes and so I have to give a courtesy chuckle even though I'm thinking "jesus, dude, pick your audience."
The "Way Too Intense". This person gives a shit about EVERYTHING. They have endless reserves of enthusiasm and interest for any little thing that comes up, and try very hard to get everyone else feeling just as fired up as they are. This is the kind of person that screams "FUCK YEAH!" in a quiet pub when you mention you're grabbing crisps. No matter how much you try to indicate that this is neither the time nor the place for Mexican waves, the "Way Too Intense" will try to turn everything into a cause for celebration, from the fact that you agree on some innocuous piece of trivia to the arrival of a drink at the table. Soon after, no-one else you are with will have energy for any conversation at all, because any slight point of interest will set the foghorn off.
The "Book of Quotes". You know this guy. This guy watches television. And movies. Lots of them. Based on their contributions to every conversation ever, this is all they do. Talking about politics? Simpsons quote. Talking about science? Hangover quote. Talking about how much you hate people that endlessly quote movies and shows rather than coming up with their own contribution to the discourse in a vain attempt to appear intelligent and culturally aware but really they just come off as derivative and thoughtless because half the time the quote isn't even relevant or insightful? Monty Python quote.
The "A Little Too Rude". This person doesn't quite know where the line is, but that won't stop them making a dead baby joke at your Nan's birthday. Or telling everyone about that time they got really drunk and forgot to wear a condom, but it was OK because he pulled out in time in a crowded restaurant. This person makes you want to curl up into the foetal position until the awkwardness goes away forever.
The "Annoying Voice". This person has an annoying voice. Nothing they say is funny or interesting because they have an annoying voice.
The "Poor Timing". This person may be funny if they weren't just that little bit off the mark. Maybe the conversation had just moved on and it's an awkward throwback. Maybe they said something predicting where the conversation was going before it got there. Whatever the reason, this terminally rhythm-free dolt will disrupt the internal flow of any conversation they're a part of, making everyone they're around have to try a little harder just to keep the conversation running.
Think about anyone you know that is terminally unfunny. They fit into one (or more) of these categories, without fail. Or they will now, at least, because you won't be able to stop thinking about what kind of unfunny they are. My work here is done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)