Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Hate
They gather together, groups of like-minded individuals, huddling in their communal dens of anger, hate, and decisive ignorance. When they speak, the inability to empathize is not there, instead the vitriol covers the fear. The bluster works, and entices their audiences, their facade repeated at them ten, a hundred, a thousand,a million fold. They see their lies accepted and encouraged, and so, they lie more; convincing themselves as they convince each other.
The stink of fear covered by a sleazier smell of the excited, the poor, the con-men, and the rapture of absolute faith, permeates their gatherings- alerting their brethren to the places of succor. Their long mental bondage to the obviously untrue has bent their thoughts to credulity. The seeds of doubt, fear, and intolerance- bred into us during times of famine, to ensure the protection of the familiar over the foreign- have been given empty words, the most conducive fertilizer. Warned to be obedient, craving to be led, they have fallen for a lie foisted upon them from without, fed by the laziness and ignorance of their forebears, and reinforced by rational, cognitive, reasoning- up to a point.
Their bonds make them stronger. They fake it, and seeing it convincingly faked on the faces, in the words, and from the deeds of their ilk, they are convinced of their own sincerity. The cycle continues, and they force their spawn into it, as they were forced, a tradition of hate, a ritual of intolerance, and a wholesale denial of objective reality. Nevermind those who leave.
Nevermind those who falter. Nevermind those who repent. They were weak. They were not the truly righteous. Each tells a story, in the popular tradition, of how- once- they too did not understand. Once, they too did not believe. Yet, the universe reveals itself, and here they stand, telling the story of how they too saw the light. It is inevitable, undeniable, and conclusively right to believe the same. Anyone who does not is suspect.
Anyone who does not is untrustworthy. Anyone who does not should be shown the light! No righteous person can deny the truth, when confronted with it! No righteous person would dare give false credence to the popular lie, the obvious hidden reality behind reality. Simply look, and it is obvious that the secret lies just behind the surface. Simply look, and it is obvious all of society secretly feels the same.
The facts support their cause. There is no other way of reasonably interpreting the information. Nevermind that the information cannot speak for itself. Pay no attention to the interpretation behind the curtain. They remind themselves of their righteousness, of their infallibility (except when perfection would be an affront). Everything reinforces, everything backs them up, everything points to the inevitability, to the futility of rebellion.
It is easier to believe. It is easier to conform. It's lonely to be alone. It's lonely to buck the trend. Their friends, their families, everyone they know believes. It is easier to accept than think. The outside is scary, cold, and hostile; and when it's not is when it's the most insidiously evil and threatening.
They huddle together, in their dens of ignorance. Each alone in their doubts, most incapable of voicing what angers them about the opposition. The lies, the facades, the fakery, it all weaves together, forming a comforting blanket of assurance. There's time enough tomorrow to think, but today it's too disheartening. Belief feels good, feels comfortable, and the opposition- the presumed oppression of their side- gives them strength of conviction.
They gather together, groups of like-minded individuals, huddling in their communal dens of anger, hate, and decisive ignorance. When they speak, the inability to empathize is not there, instead the vitriol covers the fear. The bluster works, and entices their audiences, their facade repeated at them ten, a hundred, a thousand,a million fold. They see their lies accepted and encouraged, and so, they lie more; convincing themselves as they convince each other. Read More...
The stink of fear covered by a sleazier smell of the excited, the poor, the con-men, and the rapture of absolute faith, permeates their gatherings- alerting their brethren to the places of succor. Their long mental bondage to the obviously untrue has bent their thoughts to credulity. The seeds of doubt, fear, and intolerance- bred into us during times of famine, to ensure the protection of the familiar over the foreign- have been given empty words, the most conducive fertilizer. Warned to be obedient, craving to be led, they have fallen for a lie foisted upon them from without, fed by the laziness and ignorance of their forebears, and reinforced by rational, cognitive, reasoning- up to a point.
Their bonds make them stronger. They fake it, and seeing it convincingly faked on the faces, in the words, and from the deeds of their ilk, they are convinced of their own sincerity. The cycle continues, and they force their spawn into it, as they were forced, a tradition of hate, a ritual of intolerance, and a wholesale denial of objective reality. Nevermind those who leave.
Nevermind those who falter. Nevermind those who repent. They were weak. They were not the truly righteous. Each tells a story, in the popular tradition, of how- once- they too did not understand. Once, they too did not believe. Yet, the universe reveals itself, and here they stand, telling the story of how they too saw the light. It is inevitable, undeniable, and conclusively right to believe the same. Anyone who does not is suspect.
Anyone who does not is untrustworthy. Anyone who does not should be shown the light! No righteous person can deny the truth, when confronted with it! No righteous person would dare give false credence to the popular lie, the obvious hidden reality behind reality. Simply look, and it is obvious that the secret lies just behind the surface. Simply look, and it is obvious all of society secretly feels the same.
The facts support their cause. There is no other way of reasonably interpreting the information. Nevermind that the information cannot speak for itself. Pay no attention to the interpretation behind the curtain. They remind themselves of their righteousness, of their infallibility (except when perfection would be an affront). Everything reinforces, everything backs them up, everything points to the inevitability, to the futility of rebellion.
It is easier to believe. It is easier to conform. It's lonely to be alone. It's lonely to buck the trend. Their friends, their families, everyone they know believes. It is easier to accept than think. The outside is scary, cold, and hostile; and when it's not is when it's the most insidiously evil and threatening.
They huddle together, in their dens of ignorance. Each alone in their doubts, most incapable of voicing what angers them about the opposition. The lies, the facades, the fakery, it all weaves together, forming a comforting blanket of assurance. There's time enough tomorrow to think, but today it's too disheartening. Belief feels good, feels comfortable, and the opposition- the presumed oppression of their side- gives them strength of conviction.
They gather together, groups of like-minded individuals, huddling in their communal dens of anger, hate, and decisive ignorance. When they speak, the inability to empathize is not there, instead the vitriol covers the fear. The bluster works, and entices their audiences, their facade repeated at them ten, a hundred, a thousand,a million fold. They see their lies accepted and encouraged, and so, they lie more; convincing themselves as they convince each other. Read More...
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Transparency
Capitalism doesn't work without Transparency. Don't believe me? Go read up. I'll let you read whoever you want. Go ahead, I'll wait...
Done?
Didn't do it, did you? Lazy fuck.
Here's the gist: No one will say that lying, obfuscation, and bullshitting is good for capitalism and the free market. The only time anyone gets close to saying that is when they have an agenda- like transparency hurting their bottom line. That's when you hear things like "Sausages and Laws". (The idea being both are such horrible things to make that no one should be forced to know what goes into them.)
And, to be fair, I'm not- always- talking about knowing 100% about how something is made. Though, current research into things like Creative Commons, GNU, and Open-Source strategies are showing that 100% transparency is viable.
Let's start over.
The Financial Crisis is wholly due to a lack of transparency in a number of systems. The Arcane Economics of Banking meant that no one outside the industry- and few inside- could understand what was happening. More to the point, the absolute lack of transparency involved with Credit Default Swaps spread the housing collapse into almost every other sector of the world and the economy.
Banks were allowed to make these Swaps with each other, and no one (including the banks making the swaps) knew or had to be told ANYTHING!
Pork belly projects, signing statements, and line item vetoes along with energy strategy meetings, White House leaks of covert CIA personnel, etc etc
Neither Democracy nor the Free Market work well without informed consumers. The voters are the consumers of the government. Back door deals, bribery, extortion, no-bid contracts, all of these things can happen easily when no one has the power or ability to see what's happening. And all of them become infinitely harder when everyone can see everything.
Banks would have never been allowed to take out 60 trillion worth of Credit Default Swaps on 5 trillion worth of bonds if the public would have been aware of what was going on.
Take your favorite government scandal or screw-up and imagine if everything that your elected officials did was available for the purview of the constituency.
Are there times in government when transparency is a potential risk? National Security, for instance?
Sure, I'll grant that- though I'm sure arguments can be made against the idea. So maybe government needs some protections; but I'd challenge any libertarian to show that "smaller government" or "closer government" is significantly better than "open" or "transparent" government.
Consumers must be allowed to make informed decisions. Not because they all will; but because some will, and those few will influence a few more and a few more and a few more, until there's a critical mass. When was the last time a company tanked because they did something out in the open that everyone could see? Enron? Nope. Worldcom? Nope. The Banks? Nope. All of 'em were hiding things behind closed doors.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to see the price of a beverage.
Imagine if you knew purchasing a beverage would cost 2 $US, but you had no idea how much of that was the actual price, and how much was markup/taxes/whatever.
Imagine you were hired but the company you worked for didn't have to tell you how much you were making. Imagine they just said "We'll pay you enough for room, board, and a vehicular allowance." Is that millions for a benz, mansion, and caviar, or hundreds for an economy apartment, some ramen, and the occasional taxi?
Transparency is a must.
I suggest we convey that to our legislatures, our judges, and our businesses. If the current economic problems aren't enough incentive, I have no idea what would be... Read More...
Done?
Didn't do it, did you? Lazy fuck.
Here's the gist: No one will say that lying, obfuscation, and bullshitting is good for capitalism and the free market. The only time anyone gets close to saying that is when they have an agenda- like transparency hurting their bottom line. That's when you hear things like "Sausages and Laws". (The idea being both are such horrible things to make that no one should be forced to know what goes into them.)
And, to be fair, I'm not- always- talking about knowing 100% about how something is made. Though, current research into things like Creative Commons, GNU, and Open-Source strategies are showing that 100% transparency is viable.
Let's start over.
The Financial Crisis is wholly due to a lack of transparency in a number of systems. The Arcane Economics of Banking meant that no one outside the industry- and few inside- could understand what was happening. More to the point, the absolute lack of transparency involved with Credit Default Swaps spread the housing collapse into almost every other sector of the world and the economy.
Banks were allowed to make these Swaps with each other, and no one (including the banks making the swaps) knew or had to be told ANYTHING!
Pork belly projects, signing statements, and line item vetoes along with energy strategy meetings, White House leaks of covert CIA personnel, etc etc
Neither Democracy nor the Free Market work well without informed consumers. The voters are the consumers of the government. Back door deals, bribery, extortion, no-bid contracts, all of these things can happen easily when no one has the power or ability to see what's happening. And all of them become infinitely harder when everyone can see everything.
Banks would have never been allowed to take out 60 trillion worth of Credit Default Swaps on 5 trillion worth of bonds if the public would have been aware of what was going on.
Take your favorite government scandal or screw-up and imagine if everything that your elected officials did was available for the purview of the constituency.
Are there times in government when transparency is a potential risk? National Security, for instance?
Sure, I'll grant that- though I'm sure arguments can be made against the idea. So maybe government needs some protections; but I'd challenge any libertarian to show that "smaller government" or "closer government" is significantly better than "open" or "transparent" government.
Consumers must be allowed to make informed decisions. Not because they all will; but because some will, and those few will influence a few more and a few more and a few more, until there's a critical mass. When was the last time a company tanked because they did something out in the open that everyone could see? Enron? Nope. Worldcom? Nope. The Banks? Nope. All of 'em were hiding things behind closed doors.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to see the price of a beverage.
Imagine if you knew purchasing a beverage would cost 2 $US, but you had no idea how much of that was the actual price, and how much was markup/taxes/whatever.
Imagine you were hired but the company you worked for didn't have to tell you how much you were making. Imagine they just said "We'll pay you enough for room, board, and a vehicular allowance." Is that millions for a benz, mansion, and caviar, or hundreds for an economy apartment, some ramen, and the occasional taxi?
Transparency is a must.
I suggest we convey that to our legislatures, our judges, and our businesses. If the current economic problems aren't enough incentive, I have no idea what would be... Read More...
State of the World
Wall E and a Lack of Transparency
My nephew was one of, presumably, millions of children who recently acquired the Wall E DVD. I caught the last 30 minutes, while eating lunch. Wall E appears to be the latest in a string of popular entertainments that focuses on two things: The Bad Side of Technology and The Environment.
Let's not mince words, here: Global Warming may be happening. What? "May be"? Don't scoff. The facts aren't at all convincing. Oh, the proponents will tell you all sorts of things; but the facts must be interpreted to see those things. Which is fine, except that those exact same facts lend themselves to the exact opposite interpretations, as well. The general consensus is "Global Warming is happening" but anything, anything at all, more than that is controversial- though, often, popular. The temperature rose, roughly, 1 degree over the last century. The hottest year on record was 1998- that's a decade ago, now- and there are indications that 2008 may end up being "less warm" than 2007.
But the (potential) controversy of Global Warming is a backdrop. The important issue is that the climate, in general, is extremely popular- much like Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys once were. Wall E supposes that (1) The Earth becomes too polluted to live on [notice, that it's not too warm or too cold, thereby avoiding a potentially laughable concept should either prove true/false in coming decades], and (2) technology will lead to the fat-assed immobility of all of humanity. Convenience equals laziness, apparently.
This sort of "now sucks and the future isn't gonna be all that great comes from a number of places. The first, and most obvious, is the "Those Were The Days" mentality that everyone has. Look to the names of generations for a clue: "The Greatest Generation", "The Baby Boomers", "Gen X", "Gen Next". Words for modern society are just as telling "Slacker Culture", "Nerd Couture", etc. References to how the hardy generations of yesteryear overcame their struggles, while subtly or overtly criticizing the current generation(s), are almost daily features in newspapers and online- in light of the current financial Ragnarock.
We like to talk about how good it was yesterday, back in the "good ol' days", and we often do this while utilizing the technology and advances of today- like computers and the internet. It's so common most people do it without even thinking about the implications of their statements. "They don't make 'em like that anymore," is a common refrain.
Damn right they don't, I say! Good Riddance!
The world has more people on it today than ever before. This is due, in no small part, to better technology. Better efficiency, better knowledge, and better convenience; and there's nothing wrong with any of that!
100 years ago, the Billions of people alive today wouldn't have had enough food, water, shelter, or other basic neccessities. There are those today who don't have any of the modern conveniences, as well- most of those through no choice of their own. Do they look happy to you?
Progress is a good thing. The future sucks, mainly, because by the time we get there the little steps we took along the way will make the giant leaps seem so much more mundane and uninspiring. 100 years ago most people didn't have cars, tvs, indoor plumbing, electricity, and they'd never been on an airplane. You are viewing this on a machine that an optimistic futurist, 100 years ago, might not have conceived as possible. We've put men on the moon, and there are 10 people something like 300 miles above your head floating in an international space station funded by the US, Russia, Japan, Italy, The UK, Canada, etc.
You've probably tasted food from Southeast Asia, Mexico, Italy, Spain, France, and many other countries- something your grandparents' parents probably didn't ever get a chance to do (at least, not regularly). I can remember when they paved the street in front of my house. My father can remember when his grandpa got indoor plumbing and electricity.
Progress is a good thing, and inspiring. If you don't believe me, take a look at what the Hubble telescope has recently shown us, and keep in mind that just 20 years ago these images were impossible. Photo of the Orion Nebula's Trapezium cluster, "more than 300 fledgling stars and brown dwarfs surround the brightest, most massive stars [center of picture] in Hubble's view of the Trapezium cluster's central region."
Humans are naturally inquisitive, naturally warlike, and naturally social creatures. Unless women and men collectively start really digging fat lazy shitbags, the human race isn't going down the toilet. As a matter of fact, look back through old pictures. Today we're healthier, taller, better fed, and smarter than those sorry saps of yesteryear.
It's only been 30 years since we've had a reasonable expectation of adequate nutrition in the US. In the 60s, in rural America, you may not have gotten all of the vitamins and minerals needed for healthy development. The Internet allows us to instantly accumulate information our parents had to go to the library to find. Not to mention our better understanding of damn near everything, which is then reflected in what we're taught.
I know, I know, Wall E is just a movie- and a kid's movie, at that!
But it's symptomatic of our culture, today. The Earth isn't going to 'splode. Yes, we need to watch out for pollution, especially, because it (by definition) poisons our environment. But these ideas that humanity isn't natural (what are we, then, supernatural? subnatural?), that we're dooming ourselves and our planet with every step forward. This silly nostalgic bullshit where we gloss over the bad things that happened yesterday (part of how our memories work) and remember only the good, exciting things, is about as useful as tits on a bull.
Today, despite what you might think, is objectively better for the whole than was yesterday. We're moving into the future, and we're dragging all you bastards with us. Read More...
My nephew was one of, presumably, millions of children who recently acquired the Wall E DVD. I caught the last 30 minutes, while eating lunch. Wall E appears to be the latest in a string of popular entertainments that focuses on two things: The Bad Side of Technology and The Environment.
Let's not mince words, here: Global Warming may be happening. What? "May be"? Don't scoff. The facts aren't at all convincing. Oh, the proponents will tell you all sorts of things; but the facts must be interpreted to see those things. Which is fine, except that those exact same facts lend themselves to the exact opposite interpretations, as well. The general consensus is "Global Warming is happening" but anything, anything at all, more than that is controversial- though, often, popular. The temperature rose, roughly, 1 degree over the last century. The hottest year on record was 1998- that's a decade ago, now- and there are indications that 2008 may end up being "less warm" than 2007.
But the (potential) controversy of Global Warming is a backdrop. The important issue is that the climate, in general, is extremely popular- much like Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys once were. Wall E supposes that (1) The Earth becomes too polluted to live on [notice, that it's not too warm or too cold, thereby avoiding a potentially laughable concept should either prove true/false in coming decades], and (2) technology will lead to the fat-assed immobility of all of humanity. Convenience equals laziness, apparently.
This sort of "now sucks and the future isn't gonna be all that great comes from a number of places. The first, and most obvious, is the "Those Were The Days" mentality that everyone has. Look to the names of generations for a clue: "The Greatest Generation", "The Baby Boomers", "Gen X", "Gen Next". Words for modern society are just as telling "Slacker Culture", "Nerd Couture", etc. References to how the hardy generations of yesteryear overcame their struggles, while subtly or overtly criticizing the current generation(s), are almost daily features in newspapers and online- in light of the current financial Ragnarock.
We like to talk about how good it was yesterday, back in the "good ol' days", and we often do this while utilizing the technology and advances of today- like computers and the internet. It's so common most people do it without even thinking about the implications of their statements. "They don't make 'em like that anymore," is a common refrain.
Damn right they don't, I say! Good Riddance!
The world has more people on it today than ever before. This is due, in no small part, to better technology. Better efficiency, better knowledge, and better convenience; and there's nothing wrong with any of that!
100 years ago, the Billions of people alive today wouldn't have had enough food, water, shelter, or other basic neccessities. There are those today who don't have any of the modern conveniences, as well- most of those through no choice of their own. Do they look happy to you?
Progress is a good thing. The future sucks, mainly, because by the time we get there the little steps we took along the way will make the giant leaps seem so much more mundane and uninspiring. 100 years ago most people didn't have cars, tvs, indoor plumbing, electricity, and they'd never been on an airplane. You are viewing this on a machine that an optimistic futurist, 100 years ago, might not have conceived as possible. We've put men on the moon, and there are 10 people something like 300 miles above your head floating in an international space station funded by the US, Russia, Japan, Italy, The UK, Canada, etc.
You've probably tasted food from Southeast Asia, Mexico, Italy, Spain, France, and many other countries- something your grandparents' parents probably didn't ever get a chance to do (at least, not regularly). I can remember when they paved the street in front of my house. My father can remember when his grandpa got indoor plumbing and electricity.
Progress is a good thing, and inspiring. If you don't believe me, take a look at what the Hubble telescope has recently shown us, and keep in mind that just 20 years ago these images were impossible. Photo of the Orion Nebula's Trapezium cluster, "more than 300 fledgling stars and brown dwarfs surround the brightest, most massive stars [center of picture] in Hubble's view of the Trapezium cluster's central region."
Humans are naturally inquisitive, naturally warlike, and naturally social creatures. Unless women and men collectively start really digging fat lazy shitbags, the human race isn't going down the toilet. As a matter of fact, look back through old pictures. Today we're healthier, taller, better fed, and smarter than those sorry saps of yesteryear.
It's only been 30 years since we've had a reasonable expectation of adequate nutrition in the US. In the 60s, in rural America, you may not have gotten all of the vitamins and minerals needed for healthy development. The Internet allows us to instantly accumulate information our parents had to go to the library to find. Not to mention our better understanding of damn near everything, which is then reflected in what we're taught.
I know, I know, Wall E is just a movie- and a kid's movie, at that!
But it's symptomatic of our culture, today. The Earth isn't going to 'splode. Yes, we need to watch out for pollution, especially, because it (by definition) poisons our environment. But these ideas that humanity isn't natural (what are we, then, supernatural? subnatural?), that we're dooming ourselves and our planet with every step forward. This silly nostalgic bullshit where we gloss over the bad things that happened yesterday (part of how our memories work) and remember only the good, exciting things, is about as useful as tits on a bull.
Today, despite what you might think, is objectively better for the whole than was yesterday. We're moving into the future, and we're dragging all you bastards with us. Read More...
Friday, November 14, 2008
problem
in the preceeding post, I realise I am falling into a common error: saying it, but not proving it.
This will be corrected, expect further, more thought out ramblings on the topic to be forthcoming. Read More...
This will be corrected, expect further, more thought out ramblings on the topic to be forthcoming. Read More...
The Anti-Theist
Fuck the fourth wall, for a minute.
I'm not sure who, if anyone, really reads this. I don't know what each of you think about science, religion, society, et cetera. What I can assume, unless this is the first time you're reading my blog, is that you know my thoughts on many things. Particularly about religion. The short of it is: I am a militant anti-theist.
Why "militant"? Because the whole idea of religion grates on me, and anywhere it crops up, I have an (impossibly) hard time not attacking it. That's not to say I support, advocate, or encourage such things as genocide, church burning, or other equally offensive attitudes: I most certainly do not. However, I am a very (physically) large, very loud, voice who refuses to be silent about how I feel. I refuse to remain silent about the hypocrisy, childishness, insanity, idiocy, and generally reprehensible nature of religion; and due to my insane need to always point out the fallibility of religion, I say "militant".
I am anti-theist because I believe the world would be better off without religion. That's not to say I think that there should be thought-crimes, that personal private beliefs should be banned, or anything so draconian. That is to say, that I believe the whole of humanity would be far better served if no one "fell" for the con that is religion- and supernatural belief. I know this will never happen; but I also know that it is worth working towards. If 1% of 1% of the entire population of the Earth, today, would put away the nonsense and start living rationally that's an additional 650,000 people (roughly); and that's a worthwhile goal.
Okay, and?
There's a lot of chatter about being "good", "kind", "friendly" atheists. This is an aspect of an outreach initiative championed by many non-theistic communities. Huh? There's been studies that show, given an otherwise satisfactory voting record, people in the US are most likely to NOT vote for someone if they are an atheist. Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, yet we make up something like 10%- or more- of the population. This is, partially, why words like Brights, Secular, Humanists, Non-theists, and others are thrown around. The atheist community is trying to re-brand itself, a la the Homosexual community that adopted the word "Gay" and made itself less frightening to Heterosexuals.
What happens, is groups like The Atheist Alliance, Minnesota Atheists, CSI (formerly CSICOP), and others talk about being generally less aggressive. The consensus being that we're misunderstood, and people of faith are scared we're out to kill their children and rape their farm implements. Which isn't totally wrong, of course; though, we prefer consenting relations with shovels, obviously. The idea is: "let them see you're a friendly face, and basically just like them", with the hope/faith/hypothesis this will engender understanding and less fear. And the assumption that such things would cause more listening to our points of view.
The opposing side- which I sit on- says "Fuck you, and fuck that!" (Feel free to insert comment about guiding atheists being similar to herding cats). This is, in my opinion, partially due to a need for revenge. Revenge for what? Wasted time/lives, hatred, discrimination, lost opportunity (see time/lives), so on and so on. In other words, the usual human motivations for oppressing the oppressor.
Which side is "right"?
Obviously there's no 100%, black or white, solution. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong. The Kinder Gentler Post-religion-ists make very valid points about inclusion, etc, etc. My side is viscerally appealing, very human and sympathetic for that, etc, etc. We're wrong because of ethics/morals. They're wrong because not "sitting down" and "taking it" are always wrong. Notice how easily these things can be argued for/against? Notice, also, that neither side has much objective proof for their position? That's a good indication that both sides are wrong/right.
And let's get something straight: They are right. The Kindler Gentler Side is absolutely correct about most of their points, but especially about the effects such positive, kind, gentle, thoughtful outreach would/could/does have. We're absolutely wrong, we on the side of yelling and throwing shit.
But we're punk rock, so fuck them.
The problem is that both things are needed, and they need to remain separate. The KG's, as I will henceforth call them, will win more hearts and minds, and further the goals of all of us; but there are assholes out there on the side of religion who will continue to rant, lie, rave, lie, scream, lie, accuse, lie, and generally annoy the shit out of me- most often by blatantly lying.
Here's the solution:
The KG's and Us represent extreme viewpoints. Extremes NEVER work, if they did statistics wouldn't be NEARLY as important when discussing society(s). A moderate viewpoint is needed, and- according to the statistics- is expressed/held by the majority of people already. So, we're good there, anyway. But, there's more.
I promise- and I can only speak for myself (if you think that atheists in general are hard to herd, try my side of the moral divide)- to focus my vitriol at those who obviously deserve it. I will not walk up to someone and start yelling at them for no reason because 90% of the time they will be religious and therefore deserving of my anger. I will, however, aggressively attack anyone who even slightly deserves it. (I am militant, remember?) In return for this, KG's, I will not interfere should you be talking kindly and gently to people I'm not currently yelling at; and I will (sometimes) accept it if enough of you tell me I'm wrong to yell at a certain person.
I will continue to rail against tax-exempt churchs, christian day care facilities, the 700 club, anyone who doesn't sarcastically refer to themselves while using the title "Reverend" (or similar), the fuckstick priest who is saying Catholics shouldn't get communion if they voted for Obama, and the like.
Aggression actually does have its uses. Meekly "turning the other cheek" is a bunch of bullshit that has never worked for ANYONE. (Not even Ghandi, and you probably want to do a little research that doesn't involve drinking the kool-aid before you try thinking next time). Meekly turning the other cheek while there is an obvious, demonstrative, threat of violence/aggression has worked for nearly everyone- most especially anyone generally named as "non-violent".
And no, violence doesn't always have to be physical. In fact, I particularly enjoy inflicting psychological violence upon people, where the scars are far less obvious and far more debilitating.
So, I agree to do my best to only assault those who, in the parlance of Louisiana, "Need [Assaulting]". And you should simply ignore me, saying only "The views of a minority of radical and extreme elements, obviously, do not represent the sophisticated bullshit we're totally prepared to massage between your asscheeks should you just turn around and spread 'em for us..." Read More...
I'm not sure who, if anyone, really reads this. I don't know what each of you think about science, religion, society, et cetera. What I can assume, unless this is the first time you're reading my blog, is that you know my thoughts on many things. Particularly about religion. The short of it is: I am a militant anti-theist.
Why "militant"? Because the whole idea of religion grates on me, and anywhere it crops up, I have an (impossibly) hard time not attacking it. That's not to say I support, advocate, or encourage such things as genocide, church burning, or other equally offensive attitudes: I most certainly do not. However, I am a very (physically) large, very loud, voice who refuses to be silent about how I feel. I refuse to remain silent about the hypocrisy, childishness, insanity, idiocy, and generally reprehensible nature of religion; and due to my insane need to always point out the fallibility of religion, I say "militant".
I am anti-theist because I believe the world would be better off without religion. That's not to say I think that there should be thought-crimes, that personal private beliefs should be banned, or anything so draconian. That is to say, that I believe the whole of humanity would be far better served if no one "fell" for the con that is religion- and supernatural belief. I know this will never happen; but I also know that it is worth working towards. If 1% of 1% of the entire population of the Earth, today, would put away the nonsense and start living rationally that's an additional 650,000 people (roughly); and that's a worthwhile goal.
Okay, and?
There's a lot of chatter about being "good", "kind", "friendly" atheists. This is an aspect of an outreach initiative championed by many non-theistic communities. Huh? There's been studies that show, given an otherwise satisfactory voting record, people in the US are most likely to NOT vote for someone if they are an atheist. Atheists are the least trusted minority in the US, yet we make up something like 10%- or more- of the population. This is, partially, why words like Brights, Secular, Humanists, Non-theists, and others are thrown around. The atheist community is trying to re-brand itself, a la the Homosexual community that adopted the word "Gay" and made itself less frightening to Heterosexuals.
What happens, is groups like The Atheist Alliance, Minnesota Atheists, CSI (formerly CSICOP), and others talk about being generally less aggressive. The consensus being that we're misunderstood, and people of faith are scared we're out to kill their children and rape their farm implements. Which isn't totally wrong, of course; though, we prefer consenting relations with shovels, obviously. The idea is: "let them see you're a friendly face, and basically just like them", with the hope/faith/hypothesis this will engender understanding and less fear. And the assumption that such things would cause more listening to our points of view.
The opposing side- which I sit on- says "Fuck you, and fuck that!" (Feel free to insert comment about guiding atheists being similar to herding cats). This is, in my opinion, partially due to a need for revenge. Revenge for what? Wasted time/lives, hatred, discrimination, lost opportunity (see time/lives), so on and so on. In other words, the usual human motivations for oppressing the oppressor.
Which side is "right"?
Obviously there's no 100%, black or white, solution. Neither side is right, neither side is wrong. The Kinder Gentler Post-religion-ists make very valid points about inclusion, etc, etc. My side is viscerally appealing, very human and sympathetic for that, etc, etc. We're wrong because of ethics/morals. They're wrong because not "sitting down" and "taking it" are always wrong. Notice how easily these things can be argued for/against? Notice, also, that neither side has much objective proof for their position? That's a good indication that both sides are wrong/right.
And let's get something straight: They are right. The Kindler Gentler Side is absolutely correct about most of their points, but especially about the effects such positive, kind, gentle, thoughtful outreach would/could/does have. We're absolutely wrong, we on the side of yelling and throwing shit.
But we're punk rock, so fuck them.
The problem is that both things are needed, and they need to remain separate. The KG's, as I will henceforth call them, will win more hearts and minds, and further the goals of all of us; but there are assholes out there on the side of religion who will continue to rant, lie, rave, lie, scream, lie, accuse, lie, and generally annoy the shit out of me- most often by blatantly lying.
Here's the solution:
The KG's and Us represent extreme viewpoints. Extremes NEVER work, if they did statistics wouldn't be NEARLY as important when discussing society(s). A moderate viewpoint is needed, and- according to the statistics- is expressed/held by the majority of people already. So, we're good there, anyway. But, there's more.
I promise- and I can only speak for myself (if you think that atheists in general are hard to herd, try my side of the moral divide)- to focus my vitriol at those who obviously deserve it. I will not walk up to someone and start yelling at them for no reason because 90% of the time they will be religious and therefore deserving of my anger. I will, however, aggressively attack anyone who even slightly deserves it. (I am militant, remember?) In return for this, KG's, I will not interfere should you be talking kindly and gently to people I'm not currently yelling at; and I will (sometimes) accept it if enough of you tell me I'm wrong to yell at a certain person.
I will continue to rail against tax-exempt churchs, christian day care facilities, the 700 club, anyone who doesn't sarcastically refer to themselves while using the title "Reverend" (or similar), the fuckstick priest who is saying Catholics shouldn't get communion if they voted for Obama, and the like.
Aggression actually does have its uses. Meekly "turning the other cheek" is a bunch of bullshit that has never worked for ANYONE. (Not even Ghandi, and you probably want to do a little research that doesn't involve drinking the kool-aid before you try thinking next time). Meekly turning the other cheek while there is an obvious, demonstrative, threat of violence/aggression has worked for nearly everyone- most especially anyone generally named as "non-violent".
And no, violence doesn't always have to be physical. In fact, I particularly enjoy inflicting psychological violence upon people, where the scars are far less obvious and far more debilitating.
So, I agree to do my best to only assault those who, in the parlance of Louisiana, "Need [Assaulting]". And you should simply ignore me, saying only "The views of a minority of radical and extreme elements, obviously, do not represent the sophisticated bullshit we're totally prepared to massage between your asscheeks should you just turn around and spread 'em for us..." Read More...
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Bloody Undies
Ignore the video, it's the only one I could find with the song. This is "Zombie Girl", and it's catchy, and addictive- even if this is cut off in the middle. Watch it anyway, and try not to catch yourself humming it the rest of the day.
Read More...
Read More...
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Enough Said, I think.
found via Warren Ellis, who said:
A deeply peculiar piece of video, I’m guessing clipped from a British tv documentary, purporting to be a record of an Italian priest abusing a disturbed child conducting an "exorcism."Read More...
A word to the credulous: Satan was a literary invention to give Jesus a villain. There’s no such thing as Satan. There’s no such thing as God. Jesus, like Barack Obama, was a politician.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Micheal Crichton
Micheal Crichton- author of Jurassic Park, Swarm, Sphere, Congo, Andromeda Strain, The Great Train Robbery, etc etc- died yesterday (Tuesday November 4, 2008) at 66 of cancer. His books, their movies, and ER kept science and science fiction in the popular consciousness and inspired many to further their knowledge in such subjects.
Though he was sometimes controversial- State of Fear and Rising Sun- he was vastly popular and a master storyteller. Also, he was 6'9".
I remember Jurassic Park furthered my own interest in biology, genetics, and cloning.
Though I wasn't overly impressed with the trends I saw in State of Fear and Next, I still admired anyone capable of writing such densely packed scientific thrillers.
This is a loss for future readers, who will no longer get the exciting prose of one of America's best authors.
And tall people. Read More...
Though he was sometimes controversial- State of Fear and Rising Sun- he was vastly popular and a master storyteller. Also, he was 6'9".
I remember Jurassic Park furthered my own interest in biology, genetics, and cloning.
Though I wasn't overly impressed with the trends I saw in State of Fear and Next, I still admired anyone capable of writing such densely packed scientific thrillers.
This is a loss for future readers, who will no longer get the exciting prose of one of America's best authors.
And tall people. Read More...
What I'm Seeing
I know everyone has to work, and do dishes, and pay taxes, and die; and all the other things that keeps them from reading and hearing all the different valid opinions out there; so I thought I'd compile a listing of some things about Obama that I'm seeing today.
(And why the hell is the embedded spell-checking hitting Obama as misspelled?)
Charlie Stross- English SF author- on Obama is a conservative and California's Prop 8, and why HE would have voted for him. (I'll note, because he took pains to make sure it happened this way, that he did not announce who he would have voted for until after the polls were closed).
PZ Meyers- noted atheist, biologist, professor, and blogger- on Obama's real challenge (and that he's conservative/centrist), and further context explanation of the original.
And, the ever present reality- punctuated by booing McCain supporters during the concession speech (maybe?): (via ModBlog by way of Warren Ellis)
I almost want to say that the things to do/focus on are watching who is picked as what for the admin; seeing if any bullshit comes from the Obama Camp like when Bush's admin accused the Clintons and their staff of stealing valuable pieces of art and furniture; relaxing because it's all over until Jan 20, 2009; and/or that the elections went smoothly, it was all very professional- and quick- and that McCain made a great speech as did Obama, neither deviating from basically expected prose.
However, I'm not that "bright and cheery message" guy. Instead, go look at Suburban Panic, Fafblog!, and WarrenEllis.com they all have funny, irreverent, or intentionally worrisome shite for you to waste away your days upon... Read More...
(And why the hell is the embedded spell-checking hitting Obama as misspelled?)
Charlie Stross- English SF author- on Obama is a conservative and California's Prop 8, and why HE would have voted for him. (I'll note, because he took pains to make sure it happened this way, that he did not announce who he would have voted for until after the polls were closed).
PZ Meyers- noted atheist, biologist, professor, and blogger- on Obama's real challenge (and that he's conservative/centrist), and further context explanation of the original.
And, the ever present reality- punctuated by booing McCain supporters during the concession speech (maybe?): (via ModBlog by way of Warren Ellis)
I almost want to say that the things to do/focus on are watching who is picked as what for the admin; seeing if any bullshit comes from the Obama Camp like when Bush's admin accused the Clintons and their staff of stealing valuable pieces of art and furniture; relaxing because it's all over until Jan 20, 2009; and/or that the elections went smoothly, it was all very professional- and quick- and that McCain made a great speech as did Obama, neither deviating from basically expected prose.
However, I'm not that "bright and cheery message" guy. Instead, go look at Suburban Panic, Fafblog!, and WarrenEllis.com they all have funny, irreverent, or intentionally worrisome shite for you to waste away your days upon... Read More...
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Done
West Wing Did It First. A very junior member of congress, a minority, a death, a moderate republican who must pick a staunch conservative whacko for VP (who decides to run for pres 4 years later), etc etc...
Also, looks like Alabama's Black Belt went to Obama- which is something I figured.
Happy. Anxious. Really want to talk to me-in-4-years to compare notes and see if some of the things I suspect about Obama's re-election are true. (knowing me I'll have forgotten all this stuff by then, and I don't feel like writing it down).
By the by: Howard Dean = Genius; and it's unsurprising to those of us who watched him with interest 4 years ago. Read More...
Also, looks like Alabama's Black Belt went to Obama- which is something I figured.
Happy. Anxious. Really want to talk to me-in-4-years to compare notes and see if some of the things I suspect about Obama's re-election are true. (knowing me I'll have forgotten all this stuff by then, and I don't feel like writing it down).
By the by: Howard Dean = Genius; and it's unsurprising to those of us who watched him with interest 4 years ago. Read More...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
