Virtual Illusions

Let’s assume that I made a sufficiently bitter and angry Valentine’s Day post. It would probably involve phrases like Black Tuesday and talk about the assumptions of society that people are always matched and happy. It would probably include a side note about the assumption that this happens by spending ridiculous amounts of money on bright shiny objects.

Of course it would just be there to cover up or reveal that I’m tired of being alone. It’s just because I hurt.

I’m glad I got that out of the way, so I don’t actually have to write such a thing.

Culture

Recent quote by in regards to funerals being turned into media events.

“If the death doesn’t hurt you for who the person was, not what they did, the funeral shouldn’t really be for you.”

Culture, Quote

It isn’t a secret or anything, but I just wanted to mention PostSecret as one of the most profound sites on internet. While I can talk about the things that lie beneath masks and illusions, PostSecret catalogs those things.

I recommend everyone read/look at what’s there. It’s what I look forward to on Mondays.

Culture

So I was looking for some simulated flintlock pistols for my pirate Halloween costume. So at one point I was in Toys’R'Us and heard myself say:

“Have toy guns been exorcised from the lexicon of children’s play?”

Lexicon? Exorcised? What made me expect that the Toys’R'Us clerk was going to follow that? I think she picked out the word toy guns and told me that they didn’t carry them, but really, normal people don’t talk like that.

Culture, Life

I have come to the conclusion that the perm politically correct (and more often politically incorrect) to declare in equal parts the speaker’s lack of empathy and the de-humanizing of the subject.

Politically correct is almost always applied in the negative or at least cast in a negative light; “It may not be politically correct but….”, “That’s just politically correct garbage”, etc. It strikes me that all politically correct means, once removed from the political point the phrase is trying to make, is to have empathy for a group that is Other. By denying political correctness as a positive is to deny having empathy for the subject of the speech.

Take an example like “It may not be politically correct but I think affirmative action is bunk.” It seems to me that could be re-written as “Since I have no empathy for poor blacks I think affirmative action is bunk.” That isn’t to say the only reason not to support affirmative action is due to a lack of empathy, but by applying the political correct marker that is the suggestion. A belief that affirmative action doesn’t work to relieve the problem is not a lack of empathy, however, employing the political correct phrase is to say that there is not problem to begin with. That is a lack of empathy.

A lack of empathy is usually a less than admirable quality in a person, if a person is sufficiently lacking in empathy we call them a sociopath and we lock them away in a cage (One of the more extreme forms of de-humanizations). So an admission of a lack of empathy needs to be disguised and further it needs to imply a de-humanization of the subject for which the speaker has no empathy. This de-humanization is needed to make the speakers opinion acceptable. It is okay to not have empathy for a group that has been identified as less than human (it is how racism, classism and xenophobia has flourished for years.).

The same old racist, sexist, classist, xenophobic, etc screeds get rehashed under the politically incorrect moniker thus pretending the dehumanization of these screeds is not the speaker’s lack of empathy but some horrid self-censoring in the extreme. It re-enforces the de-humanization of the subject of the speech thus allowing the speaker and anyone he convinces to have even less empathy for the subject thus perpetuating there position as Other.

I guess I am suspicious when ever anyone invokes politically correct or incorrect, it seems that someone is trying to describe a perfectly good human as less than that because they would prefer not to care about fellow human beings who are different.

Culture, Politics

So I suppose I should mention that I got a letter to the editor published in the Washington Post about a week ago. It’s sort of odd it wasn’t something I really felt strongly about, just something I sort have had written before… about 4 years ago. So type, type, type and send. They confirmed some thing and bang it appeared in the paper a couple of days later. Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071301982.html

However, I expect it will stop being availible in a couple of days. I had affirm that it isn’t anywhere posted anywhere else including a personal log when I submitted it to them, but they probably don’t care once its been published so here is what was published.

=====================

Words to Live By, From a Greek Philosopher

Thursday, July 14, 2005; Page A24

Diane Ellis suggested in her July 7 letter that religious leaders and atheists get together and come up with a set of principles that both could agree are good “Rules of Living.”

I prefer the concept of principles over rules. The following were attributed to the Greek philosopher Solon, who drew them up almost 2,600 years ago:

1. Trust good character more than promises.

2. Do not speak falsely.

3. Do good things.

4. Do not be hasty in making friends, but do not abandon them once made.

5. Learn to obey before you command.

6. When giving advice, do not recommend what is most pleasing, but what is most useful.

7. Make reason your supreme commander.

8. Do not associate with people who do bad things.

9. Honor the gods.

10. Have regard for your parents.

Perhaps if elected officials want to engender good character, they should post these instead of religious texts.

I say that as an atheist; I read “Honor the gods” as “Respect what people believe” and not as a requirement to worship any god.

TODD KUSTERER

Rockville

Culture, News, Philosophy/Religion

“The fundamental difference between the liberal and the illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or lesser measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed be heard.

What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance is, therefore, the only safeguard against terror.

This point of view cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action.”

- Bertrand Russell, “Freedom and the Colleges”

Culture, Philosophy/Religion, Politics, Quote

Via coralville

This is not quite correct. I would maintain that it would be “stupid” to claim the brewer of the Pilsner beer the driver was drinking was directly responsible for the pedestrian’s death. The fault lies with the driver and to whatever factors directly caused him to misuse alcohol and an automobile.

I generally agree with you but there seems to be a disconnect between how society views alcohol and religion. Although society puts blame squarely on the shoulders of the drunk driver it also approaches alcohol with some trepidation. On the other hand religion is viewed as squeaky clean, can do harm, force for good.

Surely, if alcohol is to be approached carefully and restricted to those we (as a society) believe are mature enough to handle it, then religion deserves to have its image tainted by those who perform negative actions while under the influence of religion? I’m not suggesting it needs to shoulder the blame but it does need to be recognized as an enabling factor.

–Zafkiel

Beer, Culture, Philosophy/Religion, Politics

I was listening to All things Considered on NPR last night and they had a segment on Islam. It instilled an interesting parallel to my mind.

If you follow scientific advancement you have this movement from the roman empire to the Arab world. During this time Europe was in it’s dark ages and gripped by religious control. At this time we had the crusades, inquisition and witch hunts.

I’m going to admit not having much knowledge about the Islamic world during this time. What I have heard is that during the dark ages it was the center of learning and scientific advancement. I’ve also heard that it was an fairly tolerant (Spain under Islamic rule is often sited as an example).

Keep in mind the crusades, whatever you argue they were really about, they certainly seem like a religiously motivated attack on ones more successful and prosperous neighbor.

Move up to the last century or so and you see a reversal of roles. Islamic countries are more and more under religious control engaging in dark age like behavior culminating in a crusade(jihad) against the U.S. and other countries. Europe has loosened the religious grip and become more secular.

Could the religious push in the U.S. be the beginning of the next shift of control? Maybe this time it will fall (back) to the Buddhists or Hindus?

Anyway I’m sure people will tell why my understanding of history is wrong and way oversimplified, but I think the underlying point has some validity.

–Zafkiel

Culture, Philosophy/Religion

I was reading a report on religious demographics (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/011025/nyth023_1.html) and was struck how the second most popular religion in almost all demographics is ‘No Religion.’ For native americans it trails by a single percentage point.(19% vs 20% for Baptist).

The stats… 14.1% report no religion supporting my recent upgrade from the 10% number to closer to 18% (based on prayer activity post 9/11). Numerically that’s 29.4 million people up sharply from the report in 1990 by adding the ‘, if any’ to the ‘What religion do you identify with?’ question. And to be clear we aren’t talking about non mainline faiths, non-Christian religions accounted 3.7%.

Culture, Philosophy/Religion, Politics