Mar 09 2013
Excuse me? I don’t need a child to take care of me. I know, he might reply, I’m just trying to – trying to what? Teach him to be a man? Teach him that grown women need looking after? And that he, as the one with the penis, is just the person to do it? Continue reading
Mar 06 2013
The problem with democracy is that it’s just an appeal to the majority.
And most people, the majority, simply want whatever’s in their own, personal, best interest. We are a nation of egoists. Average life span what it is, personal interests are necessarily short-term. Average intelligence what it is, personal interests are also immediate and concrete. So what’s good for the whole, the whole country, never mind the whole planet, will never happen.
So, also, talk about the need for an informed citizenry is irrelevant. True, the majority doesn’t know diddlysquat. But also true, they have no interest whatsoever in finding out. Because all they care about is themselves. And they’re convinced they already know all there is to know about what’s best for themselves. And they’re probably right, because their interests are so immediately and concretely served.
Worse, those few to whom one might speak about the problem with this state of affairs believe that the good of the whole is equal to the good of the parts, so, they reason, this state of affairs, each individual voting for what he or she personally wants, is the best state of affairs.
I suppose it might be the most fair, the most just, state of affairs – which only means when our world stops working, we will have gotten exactly what we deserve.
We, the majority, that is.
Mar 01 2013
Given the violent content of many prime time dramas and sports, both of which are considered entertainment, it is apparent that many of us consider it entertaining when people hurt other people. What does that say about us?
That so many people find violence entertaining should be deeply disturbing. Instead, it’s so normal, it’s unremarkable. (And what does that say about us?)
Feb 21 2013
Never has it been more important to ask the right questions.
Not as philosophers, in the clearest, most explicit, terms, but in terms most likely to be used by the arrested-development minds of computer programmers.
Because phone conversations, for example, aren’t with people anymore; they’re with AI programs that are, let’s face it, stupider than most people. (Which is saying a lot.)
And that’s because they’re designed by people with no philosophical training, people who think in terms of black and white, people whose imaginations seem to be severely limited. Which means you have to stay within a severely limited range of possibilities in order to be understood; you have to anticipate how such a simple mind might say something.
I imagine a very near future in which the stupid people succeed because they’re the only ones able to communicate with all our ‘smart’ programs – because their minds are unclouded by complexity and subtlety.
Feb 21 2013
I am amazed at the number of population growth analyses that mention rape. So far I’ve read, let me see…none. And if they don’t even mention rape, they sure as hell can’t consider it a major causal factor. Do people really believe that millions of women want to be pregnant for five to ten years? Do people really believe that most women would actually consent to child number four when the other three are still under six? Continue reading
Feb 14 2013
At one of my previous workplaces, we had a little ceremony each year honouring employees who had worked there for five, ten, or fifteen years. I used to go. (There was free pizza.) But then I stopped. (After three years, I could afford my own pizza.)
It’s a curious thing, this esteem we have for longevity. Why is an anniversary cause for celebration? I can see it in some Purple Heart sense – congratulations for surviving – but that doesn’t seem to be the spirit in which such celebrations are intended. (Then again…)
So what’s the big deal about being married to the same person, or working for the same company, for so many years? Is it supposed to be some expression of loyalty, which is then rewarded? What’s loyalty? And why is it good? Is it trust? In a person, or company, no matter what they do? Excuse me, but the day my partner or my employer starts making weapons or selling unsafe products, I’m outta there.
Let’s admit it, ‘seniority’ rewards quantity rather than quality. I mean, what if it were a shitty marriage? Why applaud someone for staying in it? (Do you want fries with that?)
And what if the person’s a mediocre employee? We give them a raise every year just because they’ve been there one more year. But we don’t give a raise to the guy who’s doing a good job. Is it any wonder then that so many employees develop a clock-punching mentality, that they figure just being there, just putting in time, is enough? Because apparently, it is. If they put in enough time, they get a wage increase, extra holidays, protection from lay-off, and eventually, so very appropriately, a gold watch.
Granted, sometimes there’s a connection between quantity and quality: the longer you work at it, the better you get, the more you know. Sometimes. (So why not just reward that increase in quality – directly.) But unless you get moved to a different position, the level of mastery is often achieved before five years, certainly usually before ten or fifteen years. So seniority means stagnation, complacency. It could also mean cowardice, fear of trying something new. (Or simply the lack of other opportunities.) And of course, if one hangs on because of the rewards, it means self-interestedness.
My guess is that after a certain point, performance declines, rather than inclines, with seniority. You know you can’t be easily fired, you feel secure, you feel comfortable. So you don’t try as hard, you get a little lazy. And you get a little bored, you get a little dull.
So seniority should not be rewarded. And rather than penalizing the person who’s changed jobs every few years, we should be recruiting them.
Feb 14 2013
I’m in this world, okay, and the people identify each other by sex. All the time. It’s like ‘Female Person Smith’ and ‘Male Person Brown’ or ‘Person-with-Uterus Smith’ and ‘Person-with-Penis Brown’ – I don’t know the exact translation. But sex-identity is a mandatory prefix. They distinguish males from females. Before they do everything else. Before they do anything else. Continue reading
Feb 06 2013
As soon as I discovered I Blame the Patriarchy, I thought “I have found the mothership.” Alas, almost immediately, it powered down. Since I loved the discussion as much as Twisty’s brilliant posts, I decided to set up a new island for the blametariat: Hell Yeah, I’m a Feminist.
Unfortunately, unwittingly, I declared, in addition to the ‘No Dudes’ rule, a ‘No MtFs’ rule. It seemed logical. The reason for the first was to minimize dudely mansplaining, and I reasoned that MtFs, having similarly been raised to be men, would be almost as likely to feel and exhibit that ‘entitlement’. Little did I know.
The rule was met mostly with disapproval, so I posted about the issue in order to open discussion on the matter. But the matter has been discussed to death on IBTP (I realized this later—there’s one thread there with 772 comments), so posting about it on HYIAF is just inflammatory. (And upending a barrel of worms on the beach is not a way to attract people.) So I decided to move it here. Because it’s an important issue and should, therefore, be discussed. By everyone.
So, what follows: my original rules (for HYIAF, not this site), my discussion-opening post (excerpts), and then (most of) my explanation (for a revision to the rules). Continue reading
Feb 01 2013
Sure, women should be allowed to be surrogates. We all do work with our bodies, some of us also include our minds in the deal (some of us are allowed to include our minds in the deal), so why not? As long as they get paid for service rendered. Continue reading
Jan 28 2013
It’s ironic that the stupid people are backing intelligent design, and the intelligent people are backing dumbfuck non-design. That’s essentially what evolution is: whatever traits lead to increased reproduction, those are the ones that survive.
And what traits lead to reproduction? Not intelligence, that’s for sure. Intelligent women don’t want to have ten kids. They’d rather be doing medical research, composing sonatas, studying society. And intelligent men? They’re not cruising the bars. They’re home with a good book if they’re not still in the office or the lab. It’s stupid women who forget to take the pill or don’t get a tubal ligation. And it’s stupid men who don’t use a condom or get a vasectomy. And it’s stupid brute force that rapes. And those men aren’t targeting the intellectuals. So we’re evolving all right. Right into propagated species-wide stupidity.
But isn’t evolution all about survival of the fittest? Yeah…fittest to the environment. And since stupid people, the ones reproducing, don’t even know what an ‘ecological footprint’ is, let alone have the character (and here I include both a certain morality and self-discipline) to minimize their ecological footprint, we’re not going to survive.
Which means maybe evolution is intelligent design after all.
fiction
