ThomStratton.com

An interesting article over at Vox.com explores just why we can be so mean online.

“If a source of our moral outrage is a desire to advertise our own goodness, then that helps us understand why oftentimes our moral outrage goes off the tracks,” David Rand, the senior research on Jordan’s experiment, says.

The internet has a way of taking our evolution-derived instincts and kicking them into hyperdrive. Twitter is like a Skinner box (think rats pushing a lever for a reward) for the joys of public shaming. We can keep pressing the lever without any real fear of retaliation. When the Justine Saccos of the world drop a misguided comment in Twitter, that’s an easy opportunity for thousands to get some morality points.

Read the whole thing. There are several hypotheses worth exploring. Clearly something needs to change.

Camille Paglia: saying the things you or I would be crucified for…

It’s long, but worth a listen. Maybe it’s just because I find myself of a similar mind much of the time, but it seems like she’s a good example of critical thinking.

Everybody wants their way these days, but no one wants to be the “adult in the room.”

Bill Nye seems to think it’s okay to incarcerate climate change skeptics, even though there are aspects of the data that should give the scientific community pause, such as the way their models keep falling short of predicting even short-term reality, and how most every declaration of “the hottest year on record” include an asterisk about the data having to be adjusted. Go ahead and say that the data is still points in a certain direction if you wish, but stop insisting that there’s no room for skepticism.

Science is skepticism. There is a reason why there is a difference between the terms hypothesis, theory, and law. The minute we stop questioning even established theory is the minute we stop doing science. Mr. Nye seems to have forgotten that there was a period of time when people were arrested and killed for going against the politically-popular theories of the day, such as Earth-centric cosmology. Is he really calling for the same treatment of those who could potentially be today’s Galileos? Some science guy.

And if you’re going to insist that science trumps all, then why are we forcing people to accept anyone at all in bathrooms based on “who they feel they are” rather than on scientifically settled terminology? Self-identification of gender can’t claim to be scientifically proven when there are numerous studies–and even entire hospitals who once pioneered gender reassignments–indicating that gender reassignment is a cosmetic change that does not fix the underlying psychological issue. It may be that the data is inconclusive, but it certainly can’t claim to be “settled.”

The truth is, no one wants to take responsibility for saying “no” to anyone any more. We usually are willing, as a nation, to contort ourselves into impossible shapes if it’s “for the children.” Well, now people want to allow changes that would grant pedophiles an easy way to get access to children and no one can find the backbone to say no. Why? Because a very small, but very loud special interest group wants something, and no one wants to be called nasty names by telling them, “hey, safety concerns–especially for children–are more important than your scientifically-questionable cause de jour.” It’s a bathroom, for crying out loud! No one is comfortable there, and no one really wants to spend any more time there than necessary.

No where is this mealy-mouthed desire to not stand for anything more evident than this recent video:

It’s entirely possible that no one is really thinking about the potential negative outcomes of allowing a white adult male to identify as a seven-year-old Chinese girl of 6’5″ height and go to first grade. But that alone is odd. These days it’s en vogue to suspect white men of every type of sexual depravity. You would think an adult male wanting to be a first grader student would set off alarm bells like crazy, but no. Even though every white male college student is assumed to be a sexual predator, there couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with a white male calling himself a Chinese girl and going to first grade?!

Because that would require taking a stand that might lead to conflict. And conflict is to be avoided at all cost these days (except when it’s socially acceptable conflict with the full backing of the shrieking eels), so we’ll all pretend to be oh-so-open-minded and agree to anything and pray we don’t encounter a psychologically-damaging sidewalk chalking.

It’s now someone else’s turn to be a cub scout leader, but if only I had known back when I started that I could have guilted the national leadership into not having to take or abide by the training/policy dictating how we interact with the boys if I had simply told them all, “Hey, I don’t identify as a pedophile,” or “But I identify as an eight-year-old boy!”

I found it interesting that the only claim the people in the video were willing to push back on was the man’s claim that he was 6’5″. That’s probably the only claim he made that couldn’t be potentially damaging! It was by no means the only claim that was empirically confirmable (or rather refutable). Why on earth did they feel the need to push back on that one?

We truly have lost our way as a society. We’re unable–or at least unwilling–to stand up to people making clearly wrong claims that could put them in positions to harm people, and yet we’re clamoring to lock up people who voice legitimate skepticism that is largely going unheeded anyway. We’re only willing to stand up for anything that doesn’t make us unpopular with the loudest of the screamers.

In short, that stark-nekkid king over there is wearing the most exquisite Armani suit we’ve ever seen! We’ve never seen such a pleasing shade of blue before! And that tie! I just have to have one like it! Absolutely I’ll be there for Saturday’s parade! I’m no fool!

Maisie Williams, actress in “Game of Thrones”, has decided to reveal her limited understanding of the world. In an interview in Entertainment Weekly recently she had this to say:

Williams told EW that in one of her first-ever interviews for “GoT” she was asked if her character Arya Stark is a feminist. “I didn’t even know what a feminist was,” Williams said. “And then someone explained it to me. And I remember thinking, ‘Isn’t that just like everyone?’ And then I realized everyone is not a feminist, unfortunately.”

I suspect the definition she was given was the one many agree on, that feminists seek equal opportunity and treatment for women. And yes, it’s hard to find fault with that definition. I suppose under that definition I could be considered a feminist. However, with no apparent awareness that feminism has come to mean so much more to many women, she goes on to declare what she sees a fair way of looking at the world:

I also feel like we should stop calling feminists ‘feminists’ and just start calling people who aren’t feminist ‘sexist’ — and then everyone else is just a human. You are either a normal person or a sexist. People get a label when they’re bad.

Predictably, the Huffington Post, demonstrating a similar lack of awareness, can’t fawn over Ms. Williams enough:

Maisie Williams proposed a rather genius idea about the feminist label.

…

The 18-year-old actress also offered a brilliant reason to discard the “feminist” label altogether:

The trouble is, for anyone else who doesn’t 100% agree that feminism is the only cause that counts or matters, this approach is fraught with illogic and error. Let me point out a few problems with this.

For starters, can feminists really say there is only one, commonly accepted definition of feminism? If the one I gave above is the correct definition, then how can they justify some of the things that have been said and done to people in the name of feminism? We have an entire campus culture, fully supported by feminists, built around telling women they are incapable of encountering any negative element without going into anaphylactic shock. How does that help them be equal when they get into the real world? Shouldn’t we be instead trying to build up women to be able to handle the worst that life can throw at them rather than building up walls to protect them?

For another, if feminism about equal opportunity and a woman’s right to choose whatever life she wants for herself, why do I see so much bile and vitriol leveled at women like my wife, who choose to focus on raising their children instead of pursuing some high-power career? What is wrong with her and I, before getting married, sitting down together and discussing our priorities and plans and deciding that for us raising good, healthy, well-adjusted, intelligent and educated children was more important than either of our careers, and that we would divide certain things up rather than us both trying to be all things at once? No one has given me any grief at all for not trying to climb the corporate ladder, for not pursuing a high-paying career at the expense of time with my family. Why do so many feminists wish to give my wife grief for her choices? Who are they to tell her she should be out working long hours to pull in more money than we really need? And I’m sorry, but I cannot consider myself part of a group that would be so inconsiderate to my wife. Her happiness means infinitely more to me than your approval.

Also, I find too much hypocrisy in modern feminism. They would rather get worked up over whether or not American women get free contraception than try to actually do anything about women in other countries being gang-raped and then sentenced to death as responsible as inviting that rape. They would rather worry about whether female college students are adequately shielded from controversial ideas in their classes than girls in other countries not being allowed to get an education of any kind.

Furthermore, there are plenty of other groups to worry about. What about racism? What about ageism? Feminism isn’t the only cause out there, and to divide the world into “feminists” and “sexists” dismisses any complaints other than the complaints of women. It glosses over the fact that there are any other issues at all.

I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with Ms. Williams’ statement if she had said only, “You are either a normal person or a sexist.” But no, the deciding factor for her is, “Are you a feminist?” I maintain, because of the reasons above and more, that it’s entirely possible to not be sexist, but still not be a feminist. I suppose if you want to adopt me as an honorary feminist, feel free. But if I have to self-identify as a feminist to be considered not sexist and a normal human being, then too dang bad. There are so many different causes out there I don’t self-identify with, even if I agree with them whole-heartedly. I’m just not much of a self-identifier.

I’m a county convention delegate and a precinct vice-chair for a political party, and yet I still don’t willingly self-identify as a member of that party. And even though this weekend I’ll be voting on who we want to put forward for the general election this fall, I in no way promise to vote for any of those people. If I happen to agree with someone from the other party more, I’ll vote for them. I’ve done so in the past, and will continue to do so. I’ve voted for the other party’s candidates before simply because “my” candidate didn’t bother to submit any kind of platform or briefing on their views to the free government election website. I won’t vote for anyone simply because of a D or R next to their name, and if they can’t be bothered to communicate what they stand for I can’t be bothered to pull the lever for them.

There are very, very few causes I do self-identify with. So by Ms. Williams’ way of thinking I’m going to end up more often on people’s “BAD” lists than I ever will qualify as “a normal human being.” And I’m just ornery enough to get my back up when people try to do such a thing. If I’m not with you, why can’t you just leave me alone? Why must you automatically assume I’m against you and therefore must be labeled as the evil other? Don’t you realize that human nature is such that if you start maligning someone who might otherwise agree with at least 75% of your cause because they’re not with you 100%, you’re more likely to push them farther away than guilt them into coming closer?

I am not a feminist, even though by some definitions I’m a very good one. Continually tagging me with negative labels because I have my (very legitimate, at least in my mind) concerns about where the movement is headed does not incline me to want to be more obedient and toe the line. It does not dispose me to want to listen to more of what you have to say. It does, however, start to lead me to take perverse pleasure in not being part of your group. Want to shove me into the box of “Not-a-normal-human-being”? I’ll go out and find like-denounced people to relate to. If I haven’t joined you willingly and you’re going to insist there’s no “neutral” position to take, what other option is there left for me?  Why do you insist on making me an enemy if I’m not volunteering for that role?

This clearly goes well beyond feminism or any one cause. If you are tempted to dehumanize any person because they do not 100% agree with a cause that is not (and cannot be) 100% clearly defined and enforced, then you are the problem, not the person you’re trying to dismiss. To co-opt a phrase, check your perspective. If you are so sure that no sensible person can find any valid reason to see things differently, then you probably need to experience more true diversity in your life. I can understand an eighteen-year-old actress having a very limited, naïve view of the world. But really, HuffPo? Brilliant? Genius? No normal human being could possibly not self-identify as a feminist? You’re old enough to know better. That’s not naiveté. That’s willful eyes-closed-fingers-in-ears refusal to acknowledge anything but the 100% purity of a cause. Any movement that is unable to at least acknowledge legitimate concerns and criticisms is not one I’m prone to join.

We don’t need more fanatical causes. We need people willing to reach toward the middle, to use patience, empathy, and gentle persuasion.

Studio C has been struggling a little this season, in my opinion (PLEASE! NO MORE SCOTT STIRLING! Why is torturing a guy humorous?!), but they can still bring it on occasion. I have to admit I laughed out loud on this one:

As a bonus, in attempting to come up with a title for this post, I learned I’ve been mis-hearing some lyrics for close to thirty years. Evidently the chorus to The Pet Shop Boys’ song “Western Girls” is not “In a western town with thin walls / The eastern boys and western girls”, but rather “In a West End town, a dead end world / the East End boys and West End girls”.  (And, obviously, the name of the song is actually “West End Girls”)

Okay, I never listened to the song that closely, and I never saw the title written out. Just chill! Or I’ll punch a wall or something!

But hey, reading further in the lyrics, perhaps it’s appropriate for this post after all!

I always like to see people who don’t just complain about things but actually do something about it. We hear a lot lately about the lack of women in STEM, and that has a lot to do with the lack of girls interested in STEM. Enter model Karlie Closs. She’s actually doing something about it, and I dare say she’ll do more actual good than all the hand-wringing articles and scientist shirt-shaming we’ve seen heretofore. And good for her. We need more of this.

And already some applications are popping up online:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DongjBaWbJ4&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqhS9a0Sq1E&feature=player_embedded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJz2YZDdzqs&feature=player_embedded

My daughter, though she doesn’t care much for math or science, has learned some basic html and javascript coding just so she can make her websites cooler. And that’s where our world is headed, I think. Everything teens interact with on a regular basis runs on computer code, and many of them offer opportunities to tweak or customize that code. We don’t need to make a generation of coders, but imagine how many more young women might actually become coders if they learned how to do even simple modifications to existing code.

If Karlie Kloss kan make koding kool, I’m all for it. Go Karlie!

So, which is the worse sin, cultural appropriation or assault? And at what point can a culture claim something exclusively as their own? I can’t help but think that young woman shown here is over the line–and that she knew it, based on her behavior toward the person recording the incident. This all gets back to my post the other day. Bad behavior is not the solution to bad behavior. You certainly don’t fix bad behavior with much worse behavior.

Below the young man raises an interesting question: Just how much does this young woman know about the historical and cultural significance of the dreadlocks she’s willing to get violent to defend? It appears to me that the young man has a better grasp on the situation than she does. I think he was better prepared for the conversation she claimed she wanted to have, but contradicted herself with her behavior.

If she is the type of student we’re developing in our universities, we need to rethink education. Physically insisting an argument continue is not debate, is not the sign of an enlightened mind. He did well to keep his cool and extricate himself from the situation. Fortunately for him the videographer was recording, and willing to post it. She was already formulating a threat to turn things around on the young man when she started suggesting he was the one assaulting her. Who is teaching this person it’s okay to falsely accuse people of crimes?

My brother turns wood and has experimented with various mediums. Have you tried this one, Dan?

This is not the first time he’s had fun with crayons, as he alluded to:

Part Two:

So, I was recently elected a county delegate, representing my precinct. And then I heard nothing more–except for multiple emails per day from a presidential candidate’s campaign insisting they would have to end their campaign if I didn’t send money RIGHT NOW!  I unsubscribed, but they keep finding new email accounts to attack from. Seriously, dudes, back off already. If I could take back my vote I think I would.

But I digress. This week things began to happen. I got an email instructing me when and where the first “Meet Your Candidates” open house would be held, and where to find a list of candidates. That…was a long list. But I cleared my calendar. Then I got an email from one single candidate inviting me to an event for just him at a local park which included dinner. Sorry, but with that many people to learn about I didn’t feel much like devoting two and a half hours to just one candidate. Especially when he’s running unopposed for the party nomination. I’m a delegate, not someone looking to be roped into a single campaign. I wrote back and asked his campaign if he’d be at the “Meet Your Candidate” thingie. They assured me he would be.

Sometime during the day yesterday it occurred to me that I might only be required to vote for candidates running in my district. With that thought in mind I did a little research and found I could whittle that list of 30-40 candidates down to…six. That could be a little more manageable. So I went to the MYCT (Meet Your Candidate Thingie) last night prepared to a) confirm with someone that was indeed the case, and b) track down those six people.

The event was held in a large room at the local National Association of Realtors building. Each candidate had a table. I scoured the room. Only two of my district’s candidates were there, and neither of them had party opposition. So I decided to just hang out and see if I could learn what the issues even are. I’ve only lived here coming up on five years. I haven’t much of a clue what the local issues might be.

Boy, did I learn a thing or two. Even at the local level you really need to be paying attention. There’s a lot going on, a lot of things that need to be addressed. I spent nearly two hours there, and most of it shadowing those two candidates. I didn’t talk much, just listened and learned.

One side lesson I learned is that a disorganized staff can make problems for you. Perhaps the one candidate’s people knew he was going to be at the MYCT last night, apparently but he didn’t. It sounded like he showed up to get a chance to meet the other candidates. Once he realized that he was supposed to have a table there he pulled up a section of carpet and held court, but he evidently didn’t come prepared for that.

Clearly a candidate is only as good as the people who help him. Choose wisely.

Anyway, it was an interesting experience. But I still have at least two more candidates to track down and try and get some information on them. I’m fully prepared to cast “no vote” for these people if I they make it hard to learn about them. I’m ornery in my old age. It’s not that hard to put up a website.

More to come. The convention is still over two weeks away.