Avatar Badge & Content Advisory

Avatar Badge & Content Advisory
Showing posts with label False Dilemma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False Dilemma. Show all posts

Monday, October 31, 2016

The Enemy Within




The Enemy Within,
or,
Another Symptom
of Monopolistic Dualism,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)


"Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. Und wenn du lange in einen Abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Böse, Aphorismus 146

"Who with monsters fights, should see that he in the process not become a monster. And when you long into an abyss gaze, then gazes the abyss also into you."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
(my translation)


"In Italia, i fascisti si dividono in due categorie:  i fascisti e gli antifascisti."
~ Ennio Flaiano

"In Italy, the fascists divide themselves into two categories: the fascists and the antifascists."
~ Ennio Flaiano
(my translation)


Preface

"Monopolistic Dualism" is a term whose origin is rightly attributed to one who used to go by the "tribal name" Crommán mac Nessa, one of the founders and leaders of a movement which has at times been called "an Rian Sinnsearach" or "in Róen Sinserda" (the first is Gaelic and the second is Old Irish, and both mean "the Ancestral Way"), among other names, mac Nessa's own expression of which has sometimes been called "Ivernian Heathen Revivalism."  His work now survives only in privately-held copies and in earlier versions preserved at the Internet Archive.

Writing in the late 1990s and early 2000s, mac Nessa used the term to refer to a "religious tradition" which in its main expressions teaches dualism, both metaphysically and ethically (although its theologians often deny the dualism, realizing that dualism is metaphysically unsatisfactory and ethically depressing;  nevertheless, the "sacred" texts of the religions which derive from this tradition do express rather obvious dualistic ideas, and the laypeople of the religions think in dualistic terms, even if this dualism be "merely" a form of what has sometimes been called "External Dualism" or a form of what might be called "Actual Dualism" [as distinct from "Real Dualism"] or "Temporary Dualism" or "Finite Dualism"), and which insists, in each of the main religions which are its expressions, that that particular religion is "the one true and only way," regarding other religions of the same tradition as wrong, and consequently advocates for what mac Nessa pointed out was "religious imperialism," that is, efforts to convert others, whether by attempted persuasion or by force.  To regard these as somehow unique or original is to overlook the influences upon them, which included Parthian Zoroastrianism and various dualistic perspectives (whether philosophical or mystical, or both) in the territories around the northeast and central east Mediterranean Sea, especially in imperial Roman and imperial Hellenistic societies.

An extended examination of these various religions of the same religious tradition, and the influences upon them, is beyond the scope of this present writing, but the successor of mac Nessa, who goes by the "tribal name" Dianim ingen Nessa or Dianaimh nic Nise (and who has been entrusted with legal custodianship, editorial authority, and continuation of the works of Crommán mac Nessa), may eventually produce some discussion thereof, here or elsewhere.  Suffice it to say for the purposes of this present composition that "Monopolistic Dualism" as used by mac Nessa refers primarily to certain underlying metaphysical and ethical concepts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the Abrahamic Tradition of Religions), and, more relevantly for this present discussion, ~ the influences of those concepts upon societies in which those religions have been more or less dominant. ~


Introduction

So strong has been the influence of these religions upon certain societies that the majority of persons within those societies have a preconscious assumption of the truth of whichever of these religions is more or less dominant within the society in which they have been raised, even if they themselves have never read the "sacred" texts of that religion, attended any sort of doctrinal presentations of the religion, or done anything worthy of the name "study" of the said religion.  In consequence of this preconscious assumption, such persons when and if they take a greater interest in the religion are required to unlearn a number of erroneous concepts about the religion (and usually to be indoctrinated in a specific sect's interpretation of said religion, which may involve more "unlearning" of "erroneous" concepts and replacement with the sect's particular dogmatic positions).  As this influence is so strong upon the wider society, even of those who are, at most, merely nominal followers of the religion, the culture or cultures associated with the society tend over time to take on more and more influences from the religion.  Examples of such influence may be relatively mild or even innocuous, or they may be rather pervasive.  Such examples may be found in poetry and other literature, music, visual art and architecture, figures of speech, political discourse and rhetoric, and assorted other expressions of culture.

As the concepts involved in this influence are metaphysical dualism and ethical dualism, some explanation of Systematic Philosophy and its branches or stages is probably in order.  Philosophy, the Queen and Mother of the Sciences, from at least the mediaeval era till around the time of the fin de siècle XIX and the dèbut de siècle XX, has been characterized in retrospect (by some Logical Atomists and Logical Postivists) as "speculative," and subsequent Philosophy has been portrayed as "analytic."  Such painting of the discipline is, however, generalization, for analytic philosophy existed long before Gottlob Frege, and so-called "speculative" philosophy has continued well beyond Wittgenstein, Russell, and Quine.  The author sees the alleged distinctions between "analytic" and "speculative" Philosophy as artificial and of little to no benefit,  However, for the purposes of this explanation, when performed as a "systematic" discipline, Philosophy has traditionally begun with Metaphysics (or more accurately, Ontology and Metaphysics), built Epistemology upon that foundation, decorated it with Aesthetics, erected the pillars of Ethics to support the roof, and then constructed the roof of Politics (including usually Law and Economics) atop those pillars.

Without going into too much detail, Ontology is concerned with Being (or "Essence") and Existence, the Real and the Actual, and Metaphysics applies these concerns to questions of "What is the nature of Reality?" and "What is the One or the Many Constituent(s) of Reality?" and consequent elaborations of answers proposed to these questions.  Very briefly, Ethics deals with Justice in an internal sense (as Politics expands upon this and takes the ideal of Justice to external applications).


Dysfunctions Derived from Monopolistic Dualism

If Monopolistic Dualism be the cause, then it results in assorted dysfunctions of a philosophical, psychological, and/or sociological nature.  Having the same cause, these dysfunctions are naturally similar, at times even blurring into one another and interacting in complex ways.  Indeed, sometimes they are virtually indistinguishable.  For the purposes of this present discussion, only three will be addressed:  Bifurcation Fallacy, Double Standard, and Dichotomy, each of which is a type of Polarization.

Bifurcation Fallacy, which has a variety of names, is more commonly known as "False Dilemma" (or more precisely is a type of False Dilemma, in that False Dilemma may involve more than two options, but never all possible options, whereas Bifurcation Fallacy reduces all choices to a mere two and pretends that those are the only choices which exist), and is generally referred to by laypersons as "Black-and-White Thinking" or "Black-or-White Thinking," is a Logical Fallacy, that is, an incorrect inference form, or a type of faulty reasoning.  Bifurcation Fallacy is limited and limiting;  where multiple answers to a given question exist, only two are presented, while all others are either ignored or left unmentioned, or their existence may even be denied explicitly.

Double Standard is defined by Merriam-Webster as:


a set of principles that applies differently and usually more rigorously to one group of people or circumstances than to another; especially :  a code of morals that applies more severe standards of sexual behavior to women than to men


In unequal or undemocratic societies, a double standard may exist in the application of law to the wealthy and the middle class and poor, with the wealthy receiving privileged or preferential clemency or treatment, while the poor and the middle class are dealt with more strictly and more severely.  In the example given by the dictionary, what is intended is that the notion that a man who is sexually promiscuous is merely "sowing his wild oats" is contrasted with the characterization of a promiscuous woman as "a slut," but likewise the view of a celibate or sexually faithful man as somehow lacking in masculinity contrasted with the celibate or sexually faithful woman as a "virtuous" virgin or wife.  Exceptions to both of these exist:  a celibate woman may also be disparaged as a "spinster" or an "old maid," and a sexually promiscuous man might occasionally be labelled a "scoundrel" or a "roué," but these are exceptions to the general custom.

Dichotomy is defined by Merriam-Webster as:


a difference between two opposite things : a division into two opposite groups : a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities; also :  the process or practice of making such a division 


A dichotomy presupposes the actuality or reality (or both) of "polar opposition," and more often than not misrepresents complementary opposites as "polar opposites," the dichotomy being expressed by persons who conceive of opposition only in terms of Polarization, and furthermore see no shades of grey between the extreme poles of black and white.




Symptoms of Dysfunctions Caused by Monopolistic Dualism

Symptoms of these dysfunctions include:  Puritanism vs Hedonism, Fundamentalism, Racism, Fascism (and "Antifa"), Reactionary vs Radical, the "Two" Party System, Paranoia, and "the Enemy Within."

The influential American thinker H.L. Mencken once wrote, "Puritanism. The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."  While this was satire, it was not an inaccurate description from some perspectives.  Puritanism was (and is) a form of self-righteous busybodyism.  Puritans assume they know the will of their god, and employ haste in their judgements of others, looking at superficial actions and appearances, rather than essential motivations and attitudes.  Puritanism is an extremist movement devoted to "purifying," initially the Church of England, and later the wider society (especially members of adjacent communities who disagreed with the views of the Puritans).  Puritans have also been characterized as killjoys or dour prudes, in polar opposition to Hedonists;  some scholars (notably, Peter Gay) have contested this view, albeit with somewhat unconvincing counterexamples.  The reputation of the Puritans for religious intolerance, however, is well deserved.

A related phenomenon is Fundamentalism, which exists in most religions (and other forms of worldview).  Fundamentalism is usually, but by no means always, a religious phenomenon, and, like Puritanism, involves an attempt to maintain "purity of doctrine, and is intolerant of dissent or diverse viewpoints.  Fundamentalism also promotes a rigid literalism and socially reactionary perspectives, as well as a sort of exclusivist elitism among its adherents (whence the term "Holier than thou").  Fundamentalism may be "separatist" (withdrawn from the wider society and unconcerned with what the fundamentalist regards as "worldly" concerns) or "open" (engaging in socio-political and economic activism intended to impose the views of the particular manifestation of Fundamentalism on the wider society).  In religious contexts, Fundamentalism is sometimes set in polar opposition to what religious Fundamentalists refer to as "Modernism" or "(religious) Liberalism," by virtue of the religious Fundamentalist rejecting the application of scholarship and critical tools and techniques to learn more about the sources of their dogma (for the acceptance of such might result in the need to amend one's interpretations).  Sometimes "Credalists" are distinguished from "Fundamentalists" on the grounds that the former embrace Creeds and the Traditional Teaching Authority attributed to the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, while the latter claim to embrace the Protestant rallying cry "Sola scriptura."  For any practical purposes, however, they are the same in terms of how they approach belief and scholarship, and how they view dissent and dissenters.

Racism is a symptom of the belief in "good and evil," and the wish on the part of a person that he or she is "good," and by extension, that people who are like her or him are also "good," and therefore, anyone who is not like them is "evil."  This is usually born of ignorance and fear, which mutates into hate.  When it is writ more largely, it often results in Fascism.

Fascism is a socio-political and economic viewpoint, which has certain salient characteristics, chief among which are intense nationalism, intense pro-Capitalism, intense anti-Communism, rhetorical appeals to traditional values and patriotism and the middle class, strong "law and order" policies of an authoritarian nature, glorification of war, and scapegoating (often in the form of racist hatred).  "Antifa" was, once upon a time, a legitimate resistance movement against Fascism, but has long since devolved into the mirror image of Fascism, utilizing many of the same tactics and espousing ideas which tolerate no dissent.

"Reactionary vs Radical" refers to two polarized perspectives on society and social questions.  The Reactionary is one who is so resistant to change that he or she would attempt to undo changes and revert society back to a previous condition, and often expresses an intention to use violence in order to effect this reversion (sometimes following through with the violence).  The Radical is one who espouses change without much regard for whether or not such change will be beneficial, and generally advocates for accomplishing such change by means of violence (again, sometimes following through with violent acts).  In between these are various shades ranging from "Conservative" to "Moderate" to "Liberal" or "Progressive" (while "Liberal" and "Progressive" are not synonymous or coterminous, they do share occasional goals and sometimes their ideals even overlap, while at other times, they will be at loggerheads, because even though they both advocate for beneficial change, they come at it from different angles, the Liberal being in favor of top-down imposition and the Progressive being in favor of grass roots activism;  other distinctions between these two perspectives exist as well, but for the moment, this will suffice).

The "Two" Party System should require no explanation to regular readers of this blog.  If, however, someone would like a refresher in the subject, then "For the World Is Hollow, and I Have Touched the Sky" should serve well enough.

Paranoia refers to an irrational fear that "the other" is not only "evil," but also actively working to do harm to the subject, often by means of some type of conspiracy.

"The Enemy Within" deserves its own separate discussion, for it is to some extent a result of one or more than one of the other symptoms listed.


The Enemy Within

The quote from Nietzsche which opens this present discussion says:  "Who with monsters fights, should see that he in the process not become a monster. And when you long into an abyss gaze, then gazes the abyss also into you."

Nathaniel Hawthorne, in his short story "Young Goodman Brown," provides an illustration of this "aphorism," in that Young Goodman Brown begins the story as one of "the elect," those who in Puritan society viewed themselves as having been predestinated (Sic; haec orthographia recta est.) to salvation in spite of the total depravity which Puritans (and Calvinists in general) believe to be the state of humanity, goes out from the authoritarian order of his society into the untamed wilderness, where he started at every woodland sound and shadow, had some sort of revelation or vision, and returned to his home as depraved as he thereafter believed everyone else to be.

Fundamentalists in their zeal to be "Holier than thou" see "the other" as heretical, deceived, oppressed by demons, and so on, and consequently attempt to outdo one another in external signs of piety, much as the Pharisees who were condemned in the sixth chapter of Matthew, living not due to honest belief or desire to be good, nor from love of the divine and his or her fellow humans and other animals, but out of fear of punishment and a desire to be viewed as "orthodox" by the community.  They become what they claim to not be.

The racist or Fascist projects all of his or her vices upon "the other" who is the subject of scapegoating, and by persecuting this "other," the acting subject, in what Freud would have described as "an unholy marriage of the Id and the Superego," becomes all that he or she hates, while generally not realizing it.  When such a person does realize the truth, his or her hatred is likely to become even more intense, as blame for such "transformation" is also projected onto "the other."  She or he becomes all that he or she hates.

Reactionaries and Radicals will likewise view any variation from their particular perspective among their fellows to be a clue that these fellows are not only not "pure," but may indeed be an agent of the polar opposite perspective who has somehow infiltrated the security of their organization, and will then perform the work of the adherents of the polar opposite perspective by persecuting their own for minor deviation from orthodoxy.  They become their own oppressors.

Party members in a "Two" Party System are notorious for viewing any criticism of their party and its candidates and elected/appointed officials as evidence that the critic is a member of "the other" party (as if there were only two parties, and as if the "two" were not identical in essence).  The author's father was a lifelong partisan Republican, and he would listen to the author criticize Democrats and the Democratic Party with what might be considered to be contentment, but when she went on to criticize Republicans and the Republican Party, her father would become hostile and accuse her of being "a damned Democrat," in spite of her having just spent thirty minutes or more in critique of the Democrats and their party.  An unfortunate consequence of the "Two" Party System is that many of its captives cannot conceive of any criticism of their party coming from anyone other than a member of "the other" party.  They behave in exactly the same manner towards critics as members of "the other" party, and so have become identical to them in all but name.

When coupled with Paranoia, any of these, or some combination thereof, may lead a person thus afflicted to distrust others and to allege that such distrusted others are infiltrators from a polar opposite perspective, and/or agents of a conspiratorial operation devised by representatives of such.  When the acting subject has set himself or herself up as some sort of "crusader" against a given polar opposite perspective, convinced that the said perspective and its adherents are "evil," he or she may over time adopt the tactics attributed to that other perspective, becoming, in Nietzsche's phrase, the monster which she or he fights, having studied those tactics and the ideology of the polar opposite perspective long enough that, again in Nietzsche's expression, the abyss has gazed back into him or her.

In short, she or he becomes "the enemy within."


The Cure

In order for this symptom to be eradicated, one must not merely address the symptom.  Such a "treatment" would be ineffective, since the cause of the dysfunction behind the symptom would remain unaddressed.  Attempting to treat the dysfunction itself would likewise be less than satisfactory, because, again, the cause would still not be addressed.  The cause of these dysfunctions and their attendant symptoms must be cured.  Dualism alone is undesirable, but Monopolistic Dualism is dangerous to society.  It poisons intellects, holds people captive in the Cave of Ignorance, easily manipulated by unscrupulous demagogues and Machiavellian connivers.  Thus, what must be cured is Monopolistic Dualism itself.  To effect this cure, Monopolistic Dualism must be replaced with a more suitable worldview, of which there are several, including both Monism and Triplism, as well as various other options (even Pluralistic Dualism would be preferable to Monopolistic Dualism).  The author herself espouses Triplism, but she is not imperialistic, and leaves the choice of the replacement up to the individual healer.  For her own part, she will attempt to heal by means of Triplism, as it is her own perspective, and she will hope that it will effect the necessary cure.




Supplemental

Some readers have expressed confusion over this piece, and therefore, presented below are some comments by the author, which she hopes will clarify the import and intent of the above writing.  These comments taken together may be seen as a sort of "Abstract" of the piece, although written in a more "conversational" style than an Abstract would be.

1. The post is ultimately about how the assumption of the existence of a flesh vs spirit dualism, and/or a good vs "evil" dualism, when those are coupled with monopolistic views, result in people hurting other people, and becoming all the bad things which they thought those other people were.  It also includes a proposal for subverting the dominant paradigm which leads to this situation of "The Enemy Within."


2. I myself have a tripartite anthropology: We are Body, Soul, and Spirit.

I believe that Ethics is a complicated business, and the ethicality of conduct is found in Motivation/Attitude, Context/Situation, and Consequence.


3. Imagine that Philosophy is like a temple.

The foundation of the temple has to do with Being/Essence and Existence (Ontology), and the pavement on that is an application of it to more specific ideas about Reality/Being/Essence and Actuality/Existence (Metaphysics).

Then you need walls, so you build those out of ideas about Truth and Knowledge (Epistemology).

Then you want some decoration, so you bring in ideas of Art and Beauty (Aesthetics).

You'll need columns to support the roof, and those are made of ideas about Justice in Personal Conduct (Ethics).

And then you put the roof on, which is made of ideas about Justice in Society (Politics, including Law and Economics).


4. Okay, now, along come worldviews which have as part of their underlying Philosophy the belief in a Dualistic Metaphysic which says that Good and Evil are Metaphysical Realities, that they are Essences (no matter Augustine's attempt to spin this into a conception of "Evil" as "privatio boni" or "absence of Good"), Eternal and Forever in Conflict. This Metaphysic moreover asserts that Spirit is "Good" and is somehow imprisoned in Flesh, which is "Evil" (or at least has somehow become "Corrupted"). This may not be officially accepted as "orthodox," but is nevertheless subliminally inculcated by the guardians of "orthodoxy." Nature is consequently seen as likewise "Evil" (or "Corrupted") and so on.

Arising out of this Metaphysic comes an Ethic which affirms that Actions in themselves are "Good" or "Evil." As time goes on, this evolves through the work of Reformers like Y'shua` (Jesus) into a focus on the Motivation/Attitude (and sometimes the Context/Situation), rather than the Act In Itself. However, the old Legalism remains under the surface and generally bubbles up among the laypeople, who are not usually taught that Y'shua` gave a new Ethic to replace the old Legalism. While they are given the texts, the import thereof is not explained to them, and so they still cling to the Literalism and Legalism of the older perspective. Further contributing to this complication is the fact that early teachers of the new reform also perpetuate the Legalism to a greater or lesser extent. Other expressions of this perspective survive as well, or later develop, which perpetuate the old focus on Action In Itself as "Good" or "Evil." The Reform is therefore not very successful, like a revolution which merely replaces "Tsar" with "Chairman," or "Congreditor princeps novus, idem princeps vetus" (Meet the new boss, same as the old boss).

Because these worldviews are religious, and not simply philosophical, they also include additional notions beyond the confines of Philosophy, including the idea of "Original Sin" and a "Sin Nature" somehow deriving from "Original Sin." Rather than teaching the disciple to amend his or her own conduct by intellectual meditation, mystical contemplation, and the cultivation of virtue, these worldviews develop a concept of "salvation" or "deliverance," which requires a "savior" or "deliverer." Such a person must of course be somehow free of the "Sin Nature" and therefore must be somehow divine or specially blessed by the divine, or some such device.

Furthermore, the claim is put forward that ONLY this belief system and its "savior" figure can effect this deliverance.

Taken in combination with the Metaphysical and Ethical Dualism, this Soteriological Exclusivity (see note below) implies, or even explicitly demands, that the disciple should spread this belief system to others, allegedly out of compassion, but more because 1. the disciple fears that infidels will perpetuate "Evil" in the world and possibly visit evil in the sense of pain and suffering upon the disciple, AND 2. because the disciple may be led into doubt when confronted by an infidel who seems virtuous and is willing to rationally discuss such concepts, and doubt challenges the unquestioning credulity upon which the priesthoods of these belief systems depend for wealth and power.

Thus arises "Monopolistic Dualism."

(Soteriology = from Sôtêria, Classical [Attikê] and Hellenistic [Koinê] Greek for "Salvation" + -logia, Attic and Koinê Greek for "study, science, discipline").


5. Monopolistic Dualism leads to a number of intellectual dysfunctions, among which are Bifurcation Fallacy, Double Standards, and Dichotomies.  Symptoms of these dysfunctions as experienced in society are also discussed (including the one which is the main focus of the post, and which I have called "The Enemy Within"), and then a "cure" is proposed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The quote from Ennio Flaiano (a member of the Italian literati, and also part of the Italian cinematic scene, who lived through Mussolini's régime) is given in La solitudine del satiro as "In Italia, i fascisti si dividono in due categorie:  i fascisti e gli antifascisti."  I have translated this as:  "In Italy, the fascists divide themselves into two categories:  the fascists and the antifascists."  Flaiano gives this as a paraphrase of a statement he attributes to Mino Maccari (another member of the Italian literati who also lived through Mussolini's régime), the original statement being:  "Il fascismo si divide in due parti: il fascismo propriamente detto e l'antifascismo."  For the Italian-deprived, that means (also my translation):  "Fascism divides itself in two parts:  fascism properly called and antifascism."








The title of the post comes from Star Trek (The Original Series), Season 1, episode 5;  episode 5 overall;  production code 05.


Fair use notice
This blog contains copyrighted material the use of which may not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my effort to advance understanding of scientific, environmental, political, human rights, economic, philosophical, psychological, cultural, and social issues, etc. 
I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.  No challenge of ownership is intended or implied.
For more information: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. 




Wednesday, August 3, 2016

Proud of you? Yes, Sir.







The following are excerpts from a letter which I sent to Senator Bernie Sanders this afternoon.



Dear Senator,

This missive is in response to your Facebook post from yesterday.  ...

As you may know (and can verify from your list of campaign contributors), I have supported you in your bid for the presidency since last year.  In two separate quarters, I contributed enough to be on the list which you were required to turn over to the FEC.  ... the money I sent you was not money I could simply dole out willy-nilly, but I believed in your message and your ideals.  I still believe in those ideals.

Many of your former supporters, since you endorsed Mrs Clinton, and more since you spoke on her behalf at the convention asking us to vote for her, have disparaged and vilified you, accused you of selling out or betrayal or both.  I am sure this is not news to you.  I have NOT been one of those.  Search my posts on Google Plus ...  You'll find nothing of the sort.  I have tremendous respect for you.

I was raised in a conservative Republican family.  When I first registered to vote in 1983, in spite of this state not requiring party registration, I insisted on having "Republican" on my registration form.  I was Chair of College Republicans in the '84-'85 academic year at my university.  During the summer terms of 1985, I took "Western Thought and Culture" (a general education version of Western Civ) and "20th Century Europe" (a senior-level course in the HIST department).  The next year, I took two semesters of Logic.  My eyes were opened to the direction in which the "conservative" movement of the time, and the Republican Party, were moving, and so I joined the Young Democrats at my university that year ('85-'86).  I thereafter campaigned and voted for Democratic candidates for various offices, local, state, and federal.  ...  The Republican Party ... painted Mr Clinton as a "liberal" and a "socialist."  I bought into their rhetoric and campaigned and voted for him when he ran for President in 1992.  After he took office, however, I was dismayed and disappointed to see him cave on almost every lukewarm attempt he made to put forth any "liberal" or leftist policies at the first whiff of resistance from the opposition.  I had not joined/registered Democrat, and I was pleased that I had not.  I began looking into "third" parties.  Since then, I have vacillated between supporting "third" party candidates ... and Democratic candidates, at the local, state, and federal levels.  I did not vote in 2000;  I was living out of state and still registered here, and my absentee ballot did not arrive in time for me to return it.  Had it arrived in time, I would have voted for Nader, as I had done four years previously.  I cannot say if I would have regretted it or not as a result of George Bush the Lesser being "elected," so I will not attempt to analyze that hypothetical situation to find an answer.  I have, however, since then, voted for Democrats for President with a single exception, that being Obama's first run, when I felt I could support nobody running.  I was generally favorable toward Obama, but resented the insinuations I kept seeing that people who did not vote for him were racist.  I resent the blatant allegations in this year's primary season as well that anyone who voted for you over Hillary was sexist, but I supported you before that crap started.

When you declared your candidacy, I looked into your record, your stances, your platform.  I liked what I saw.  I thought to myself, "Gigi, this is the guy you thought you were voting for back in 1992."  I therefore enthusiastically supported your candidacy.  I campaigned for you on social media and contributed financially to your campaign.  I joined various communities on Google Plus which were explicitly formed to support your candidacy, and some which were "Progressive" and/or "Leftist."  I was eventually made a Moderator of one such community, the "American Progressives" community on Google Plus.  I even acted against my better judgment and paid dues in December to become a member of the Democratic National Committee for this year, solely because of your candidacy.

I do not know your motivation(s) for endorsing Mrs Clinton and speaking at the convention on her behalf, asking your supporters to vote for her.  I have seen various claims, including one that you were required to agree to do so when you declared your candidacy as a Democrat.  If that be the case, it only serves to confirm that you are the man of integrity whom I believe you to be.  But I do not know your motivation(s) for this choice.  I can therefore not judge you for it.  In spite of this choice on your part, in response to your Facebook post of yesterday, yes, Sir, I respect you, immensely.

That said, I will not be supporting or voting for Hillary Clinton as you have asked.  To do so would be to violate everything both you and I stand for.  I will instead vote for the greater good, not the "lesser" evil (and there is room for doubt as to which of the two main parties' candidates is the lesser evil anyway).  The little DNC has cried "Wolf!" far too many times in an effort to prop up the limited and limiting, simplistic and harmful bifurcation fallacy on which the two-party system is based.  This monopolistic dualism has been a plague on Western societies for some 1500 years with its eternal false dilemma which offers two and only two choices, ignoring the reality that more than two options exist.  We've seen the bifurcation fallacy expressed in religion (Jesus or Satan and no other options), in economics (Unbridled Capitalism or Collectivist Dictatorship and no other options), and in partisan politics (Democrat or Republican and no other options), as well as in other situations (Coke vs Pepsi?).  It is time for an end to the two-party system.  It is time to vote for what we want, and stop voting against what we are afraid of.

I have listened to and read your various speeches and comments about Donald Trump, and your view that we must stop him from becoming President.  While I certainly do not want him to win, I'm not afraid of the big bad Trump and I refuse to submit my intellect to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Metum.  I will not be terrorized into voting for a corrupt, lying, incompetent, neoconservative masquerading as a liberal.  I will not cooperate in the efforts to prostitute me to the Neoliberalism to which the Democratic candidate wishes to pimp us all out.

I will remind you, Sir, that you stated, at an MSNBC "town hall," on 25 April 2016 (see this video starting at 12:38), the following:
"I think it is, you know, we are not a movement where I can snap my fingers and say to you or anybody else what you should do, because you won't listen to me. You shouldn't. You'll make these decisions yourself."

I will remind you also, Sir, of your rejection of messiah-ship during one of your rallies, when you exclaimed:
"No!  No, no! ... The truth is you, not me. If there is any person here, any person here that thinks I’m coming to you as some kind of savior, that I’m going to do it all — all myself, you’re wrong. No president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. We don’t need a savior. We need a political movement."

Senator, you are a man of honor, worthy of honor and respect, but you are indeed not our savior.  We must save ourselves.  You told us this movement was not about you, but about us.  Sir, WE are the revolution;  WE are "The Bern."  Dr Stein says "It's in OUR hands."  She is correct.  The time has come to end the two-party system, to deflate the ego of Donald Trump, and to dash the narcissistic ambitions of Hillary Clinton.  She cannot win in November, barring some completely idiotic act or statement by Trump (not that I would put it past him, but I simply don't believe that those who plan to vote for him will ever shift their support to Mrs Clinton;  she is a widely despised and deeply flawed candidate, and the Democratic Party, which could have ensured a win by nominating you, has instead shot themselves in the foot and screwed the pooch by nominating her).

I am no novice in political activism or partisan politics, Senator.  I do not imagine for one second that it will be easy, but I am also aware of the numbers;  if we were to add all the registered Republicans and all the registered Democrats together, they would still be less than half of all registered voters.  While that does not mean that the majority are Greens, it does mean that the majority are potential Green voters (because, even in a state like this which does not require party registration, the most decidedly partisan will insist on it).  I will be working against Trump, but also against Hillary.  I will be working for Jill.  I am by no means alone in this.  More of your supporters share this perspective than the mainstream media are admitting.  Hillary was already an unlikely winner before the rigged elections, voter suppression, and collusion of the DNC with her campaign, and the insults and disrespect to you and us who have been your supporters.  Now she has no chance.  You are backing a losing horse, Sir.  It is, perhaps, too late now that Dr Stein has named her VP running mate for you to give ear to her overtures and become her running mate, and indeed, it would be a shit move on her part to replace the running mate she has already selected with you.  But I do hope you will stop pleading so heartily with us to come back and support the very system which we can no longer stomach, the system which made it plain that it has no use for us other than to rubber stamp its chosen candidate no matter what we would prefer.  The Democratic Party is too far gone to be reformed.  It must (if you will excuse me for using this spelling) Bern, Sir, and be replaced with a party which does stand for progressive and leftist ideals.  I am sure you know this, but cannot admit it publicly, for whatever reason(s).

My Heroes have always fought for the Republic, and against empire.  Proud of you?  Yes, Sir, I am.  However, I will be voting for Jill Stein for President, and I will urge all progressive leftists, and all thinking people, to free themselves from the fallacies upon which the two-party system relies.  My voice does not reach as far as yours, Senator, but I do have my own audience.  Many of them will hear my call.  Most of them have already made up their minds without my influence.  We Bern Green.

With great respect, Sir, I am

Yours sincerely,
[Name Redacted]





Thursday, December 10, 2015

Phobia vs. -phobia; Homophobia, Transphobia, Denial, Repression, and Uncertainty







Phobia vs. -phobia;
Homophobia, Transphobia,
Denial, Repression, and Uncertainty,
by Liviana (Giovanna L.)




Lately, the author has noticed a reply to charges of homophobia (and/or transphobia) having seemingly become popular among those who are, in fact, homophobic (and/or transphobic) to a greater or lesser degree, and the reply in question is an attempt to attack the very designation "homophobia" (or "transphobia") on the grounds that a phobia is a fear and they are not afraid of Gay people (or Trans people) so they can't be homophobic (or transphobic).  The author is inclined to suspect that this rhetoric is derived from a common source, as she has noticed it more and more, and only of late.  The source, however, is irrelevant for the purposes of the present discussion, which will focus on the actual semantics of the terminology, rather than its source, and will go on to provide references defining and explaining homophobia and transphobia, as well as references which suggest another sort of explanation (not of meanings, but of causes).

The rhetoric in question ignores both common usage found in descriptive vocabularies as well as technical usage found in psychological, psychiatric, and sociological sources (and even sources concerned with more "physical" medicine), in which the suffix "-phobia" is not restricted to a meaning of "fear" only, much less only "irrational fear."

Witness common usage of the word defined:
Merriam-Webster

and medical usage of both the word and the suffix defined:
Merriam-Webster

The reader will note that, even in the first link, which describes common usage, the definition plainly states:
an extremely strong dislike or fear of someone or something
(Emphasis added.)

In the second link, the medical definition of the suffix is given as:
-phobia
noun combining form  -pho·bia  \ˈfō-bē-ə\
Medical Definition of -phobia
1
:  abnormal fear of <acrophobia>
2
:  intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

For those who are unaware, photophobia is a medical (physical) condition (or symptom of some other [physical] condition):
Photophobia is eye discomfort in bright light.
--  Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia | U.S. National Library of Medicine | National Institutes of Health



Gay Pride Flag



More specifically, here are definitions and explanations of "homophobia" and "transphobia":

Definition of homophobia
:  irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
--  Merriam-Webster


Lesbian Pride Flag

Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
--  Oxford Dictionaries


Bisexual Moon Symbol



The Oxford Online Dictionaries also give:
Definition of transphobia in English:
noun
Intense dislike of or prejudice against transsexual or transgender people:
'more than 120 complaints concerning transphobia in the media were made'
--  Oxford Dictionaries


Transgender Pride Flag by Jennifer Pellinen



What is Homophobia

Understanding Homophobia/Heterosexism

Transphobia - RationalWiki

Transphobia has been defined by the Crown Prosecution Service as “the fear of or a dislike directed towards trans people, or a fear of or dislike directed towards their perceived lifestyle, culture or characteristics, whether or not any specific trans person has that lifestyle or characteristic. The dislike does not have to be so severe as hatred. It is enough that people do something or abstain from doing something because they do not like trans people.”
--  Tackling transphobia | CUSU LGBT+


To use an analogy, instead of everyone being evenly distributed in a sea, they are randomly swept up onto two separate islands, and there’s no swimming allowed in between! Each island has its own rules, or gender stereotypes, which set out how men or women should look, act or behave. The idea that boys should like blue and enjoy aggressive, competitive activities, whilst girls should be passive and nurturing, are two examples of gender stereotypes. There is strong pressure to conform to these gender rules. Society often penalises anyone who breaks the rules and the penalty is even worse particularly for those who try to leave the island which they found themselves on at birth – this is called transphobia and transphobia is the sharp end of sexism.
So, transphobia is intolerance of gender diversity. It is based around the idea that there are only two sexes – male or female, which you stay in from birth. And furthermore, that people who fit gender stereotypes (by sounding, looking or behaving like men and women are ‘supposed to’) are somehow better than those who don’t.
Trans people, gender queer people and people with a transsexual history can also experience homophobia, because the abuser often neither knows nor cares how a person identifies, just that they are different in some way.
--  What Is Transphobia? | Galop


Jennifer Pellinen's Transgender Pride Flag

Tran[s]phobia is an irrational fear of, and/or hostility towards, people who are transgender or who otherwise transgress traditional gender norms.
-- Transphobia - Definition and Examples


Interestingly, a number of studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between homophobia and repressed Homosexuality, which is to say, many homophobes are themselves Homosexuals in denial.  A brief sample of the literature follows, with quotes from some of the examples.

Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? | National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. | American Psychological Association

Is Homophobia Associated with an Implicit Same-Sex Attraction? (Cara C. MacInnis & Gordon Hodson) - The Journal of Sex Research - 18 Sep 2012

Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal? (Henry E. Adams, Lester W. Wright, Jr., and Bethany A. Lohr;  University of Georgia) - Journal of Abnormal Psychology - 1996, Vol. 105, No. 3 (.pdf file)

Homophobes Likely To Be Closet Gays, Study Finds | International Business Times

Is some homophobia self-phobia? -- ScienceDaily

Are Homophobes Really Gay? | Psychology Today

Study: Homophobes May Be Hidden Homosexuals | Homophobia & Anti-Gay Sentiment | LiveScience

The Roots Of Homophobia - Putting Freud To The Test | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS

Homophobic?  Maybe You're Gay - The New York Times

Homophobes Might Be Hidden Homosexuals - Scientific American

Homophobic Attitudes Likely To Be Stronger Among Those Who Have Repressed Same-Sex Attraction: Report

Are Homophobes Secretly Attracted to Gay People? | Psychology Today

Are Homophobic People Really Gay and Not Accepting It? | Psychology Today

Homophobia linked to lack of awareness of one's sexual orientation and authoritarian parenting, study shows

Homophobes Are Gay - Study (The Young Turks) (video)



Transgender Pride Flag by Monica Helms


More recently (since "transphobia" is itself a more recent term than "homophobia" -- as noted in the Oxford Dictionaries, "homophobia" dates from the 1960s, while "transphobia" dates from the 1990s), some thinkers have begun to suggest that transphobia may also have a positive correlation with a fragile gender identity, that transphobes may themselves be still "struggling with their own gender identity."  A couple of such discussions are linked below, with some quotations.

The cause of transphobia is still a subject of research and debate, but it likely reflects the fragile nature of gender identity. Men's and women's lives, genes, and bodies are not terribly different; the fact that someone can convincingly identify as a member of the opposite sex calls the very concept of gender into question. People who are quietly struggling with their own gender identity, and people for whom gender identity is especially important, might be frightened--even angry--when confronted with the fragility of gender.
-- Transphobia - Definition and Examples


Are our own gender identities so fragile that we must stigmatise a first-grader for using the girls' room?
...
Discrimination against transgender people is real, pervasive and often legal. And it often builds from ignorance and bias – things that start young.
...
While transgender people do face widespread mistreatment, the discrimination doesn't make much sense. Who, exactly, gets hurt if folks match their physical appearance to their gender identity? Why is it such a problem for a six-year-old girl to use the girls' bathroom?
Everyone has a gender identity. You do, and so do I. Just as the gay rights movement has made us collectively realize that we all have a sexual orientation – whether it be straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual or something else – advocates for transgender rights try to impart the lesson that each person has an internal sense of being male or female (or, for some folks, neither, or something in between). As Silverman says:
"We all have a gender identity. We just never have to think about if it we're not transgender because no one questions it."
-- From school to society, the intolerance transgender people face | The Guardian





In closing, the author will, again, quote a man whom she has quoted before in this blog -- a flawed man, yes, but a visionary man nevertheless (for each person, in spite of her or his best efforts, is imperfect, yet he or she can still do good despite her or his imperfections):

If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear.
-- Gene Roddenberry

Not something to fear, and, the author would add, not something to hate.

Va'Vuhnaya s'Va'Terishlar (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations)

Peace and long life.
Live long and prosper.













FAIR USE NOTICE:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, and so on. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The material in this site is provided for educational and informational purposes only, and is not intended to be a substitute for a health care provider's consultation. Please consult your own appropriate health care provider about the applicability of any opinions or recommendations with respect to your own symptoms or medical conditions. The information on this site does not constitute legal or technical advice.



Sunday, December 8, 2013

The Social Construction of Death

From Everyday Sociology:

In Philadelphia, an emergency room nurse named Barbara Mancini was arrested for providing her 93-year-old terminally ill father with a lethal dose of morphine. Her father was in hospice care, meaning that no further treatment was possible and death was imminent; the goals of hospice care are to ease pain and provide comfort for the dying patient. He was in kidney failure and apparently in a significant amount of pain.

Read more:
The Social Construction of Death

SuccubaSuprema writes:

The article takes a serious and hard look at our social relationship with death, pointing out rightly that "people idealize death, thinking that death is naturally peaceful, something that happens in our sleep, but the reality is that it often involves a lot of suffering."  I too have had to face the reality of the loss of a beloved feline companion.  One of the cats who have graced me by sharing their lives with me developed an inoperable tumor.  She had been with me for over a decade, through good times and bad, and may have been the primary reason I remained sane during the worst state of my health, when I myself was near to death.  Letting her go was a difficult choice;  I tried to keep her comfortable and aware of love, but as time went by, her suffering became far too evident.  The time to let her go was present, and I agonized as I contacted the local vet, who, however, was then out of the euthanasia drug necessary to ease the passage of this beloved furry companion.  I contacted another veterinarian in an adjacent county, and, together with my then-housemate, took the beloved silver tabby to his office.  The passage was quick -- too quick for me, honestly, but mercifully quick for my feline friend and companion.  I burst into tears.  Thinking about it as I write this, several years after the fact, my eyes well up with more.  I will always be grateful to her for her condition-free love and consolation;  I wish something could have been done for her to not only prolong her life, but also to cure that cancer and remove her pain.  Unfortunately, that was not the case.  I do not regret my decision to have her "put to sleep," but the pain of loss remains.  I know I did the right thing, the just thing, the ethical thing, and it was not done callously or on the basis of anything other than love and compassion.  Why we as a society have continued to refuse to allow such an act in the case of a human animal boggles the mind.  This is not about "playing God," nor usurping a supposed divine prerogative;  it is, rather, about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you;  it is about "God is love," and it is about "he who says he loves God but hates his brother is a liar, and the truth is not in him."


Tuesday, December 3, 2013

Which Is It? Fat and Fit, or EITHER Fat OR Fit, or Is This Too Simplistic?

From Huffington Post (published 20 November 2013, updated 25 November 2013):

When it comes to living a long and healthy life, a meta-analysis of mortality studies finds that being physically active, no matter what your weight, trumps being thin and unfit.

Researchers at Middle Tennessee State University, led by exercise scientist Vaughn Barry, Ph.D., examined 10 past studies that recorded information about participants' body mass indexes and fitness levels. The studies looked at the weight and fitness levels of thousands of participants (the largest one included 21,856 people) and continued to follow up with the participants over several years, ranging from an average of 7.7 years to an average of 16 years. ...

They found that fitness levels, not weight, predicted whether or not a participant had died in the study's intervening years. Unfit people, regardless of their weight, had twice the risk of dying during the study than fit people, and overweight and obese people who were fit had similar mortality risks as fit, normal weight participants. Another way of putting it: thin, unfit people had twice the mortality risk as obese fit people.

The study was recently published in the journal Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases.

Read more:
Fat But Fit? Study Reveals That Fitness, Not Weight, Predicts Risk Of Early Death



But wait, that's not all.


From The Daily Mail (published 2 December 2013):

Canadian scientists carried out research examining 61,000 people from the 1950s to the present day
The study strongly refuted the suggestion that a person's physical fitness is more important than their weight
Evidence showed despite a person having normal blood pressure and being able to process sugar easily, excess weight alone remains critical ...

There is no such thing as being fat and healthy, scientists warn.

They have strongly refuted suggestions that a person’s physical fitness is more important than their  weight. ...

The theory was that good metabolic fitness, that is, having normal blood pressure and being able to process sugar easily, would protect people from the consequences of obesity, such as heart disease and diabetes.

However, the new research, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that even though high blood pressure, poor blood sugar control and high blood fats are important indicators of disease, the excess weight itself remains critical.

Seriously overweight people who displayed none of these warning signs were nonetheless found to die younger than people at a normal weight.

Canadian scientists, from  the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute at Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto, conducted a review of eight studies published from 1950 onwards to find out whether these metabolic indicators were linked to premature death and heart disease in normal-weight, overweight and obese people.

Read more:
Being fit is no help if you're fat as well: Scientists say healthy obesity does not exist



SuccubaSuprema writes:

So which is it?  Can a person be "fat but fit," or does obesity trump fitness?  Those who are rightly skeptical of the reliability of reports in The Daily Mail (due to a history of that paper occasionally getting it wrong and having to print retractions) should be advised that media outlets which are generally regarded as usually more reliable also covered the same story, among them Time Magazine:
You Can’t Be Fit and Fat
-- Or are there other variables (such as genetics, for example, or sleep patterns, or diet, or alcohol use, or any of several other possible contributors) which should be factored into the equation?  In short, has the question been formed as a False Dilemma?

What do you think?



Sunday, December 1, 2013

Will the UK Grant Rights to the Intersex?




From The Independent:

It has taken Holly Greenberry, Sarah Graham, Dawn Vago and Elizabeth Jo Roberts years to go public with their stories. Born into a world that insists on dividing people into two sexes, they did not always know how they fitted in. They were born to typical families in typical areas of Britain, but none of them developed into typical male or females. They are intersex.

An estimated one in 2,000 babies is born with an intersex condition or a (controversially named) disorder of sex development (DSD), which means that they are born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that does not fit the typical definitions of female or male. This can include atypical genitalia, chromosomes or internal sex organs.

The women argue that their very existence has been “eradicated” by British society. Generations of children have been operated upon to “normalise” their genitals or sexual anatomy, while official documentation, from birth certificates to passports, requires a male or female box to be ticked.  They argue it’s one of the last “human rights taboos” in the western world.

The women have a type of androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), which means they have XY chromosomes, but are partially or completely insensitive to testosterone – they are all infertile.

The group has come together to launch a campaign, calling for the Government to urgently review the way intersex people are treated. Following on from Germany’s decision to allow newborn babies to be registered as neither male nor female, their recommendations include the option to leave the sex on British birth certificates blank, measures to protect babies or young people from irreversible and non-consensual treatment and surgery, better emotional support and increased education.

Read more:
Special report: Intersex women speak out to protect the next generation


Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Another Brilliant Piece by Matt Taibbi

As he so often does, Matt Taibbi (in "Taibblog" at Rolling Stone) has produced another brilliant piece, this time an analysis of the illogical and disconnected-from-reality perspective of other journalists, and how they attempt to rig elections by means of labels they apply to politicians.  This time, the subject is their inability to grasp the possibility that Elizabeth Warren might have a chance if she should happen to run for President, and why.

Some excerpts:

The ball got rolling this week with a massive feature in the New Republic. Written by Noam Scheiber, it's about the potential threat to presumptive 2016 favorite Hillary Clinton ("Congressional Republicans have spent months investigating [Hillary] like she already resides in the White House," writes Scheiber) posed by a would-be "populist" candidacy of Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Scheiber's basic point is that voters are really pissed about the economy and the behavior of big banks, and that Hillary, who along with her husband have been serial gobblers of Wall Street money and finance-industry water-carriers since before House of Pain released "Jump Around," may in 2016 have something to fear from Warren, a candidate who has built a career pointing out what total assholes the Clintons' chief financial backers are.

Warren, Scheiber writes, is so far out of the political mainstream on the finance issue that she was once willing to submarine a Banking Committee hearing by violating longstanding Beltway decorum – an unwritten rule in which members of Congress may "rant and rave at length, but generally abstain from humiliating appointees, especially from their own party."

The reference here was to the YouTube-famous moment when Warren "humiliated" the heads of regulatory agencies like the OCC and the Fed by simply asking them about the last time they took on any of the world's biggest financial institutions (hint: none of them could remember). ...

So far, so good.  Warren sounds like a person to take seriously, although Scheiber has tarred her with the "populist" label, a term which I've been seeing tossed about lately as if it has some pejorative meaning never fully spelled out, and I admit that I have not bothered to try to find out what they have intended by use of the term (knowing its history myself and being capable of making up my own mind without the media's linguistic revisionism), but I have noticed it.  But wait.  The story doesn't end with Scheiber's article:

This piece instantly inspired a slew of pooh-poohing editorials, including a weirdly insulting and premature Slate rebuttal ... and a correspondingly dismissive blog yesterday in the New York Times by the Gray Lady's cardboard conservative, Ross Douthat. ...

Most annoyingly, all three use the term "populist" with varying degrees of derisiveness, describing public anger on the finance issue as "maniacal," based on "passions" and an impractical starting point for a candidate looking for an angle to capture a national election ...

Aha, Matt points out this use of "populist" and begins to explain what these writers mean.  He continues:

Weigel went so far as to say that voters who are seeking a populist alternative for president should wake up from their impractical, "dreamy" aspirations and get over making a presidential race a "test kitchen for policy change." ...

The latest linguistic fad is to describe a candidate as being prone to making "populist appeals," a concept nearly as nuts as that ostensible single horizontal line of all possible beliefs. Only in the Beltway do they have to come up with a special term to describe the inexplicable (to them)  phenomenon of a politician who advocates for his actual constituents, instead of just whoring along the usual career track like everyone else. ...

I do so appreciate this bit, not only for the light which Taibbi shines on this new fascination with labeling some political figures as "populists," but also for his reference to the False Dilemma of the single horizontal line continuum which has obscured discussion of ideologies both economic and political (to say nothing of cultural, social, religious, and so on), by attempting to reduce everything to a Bifurcation Fallacy in which everyone can be categorized as "Left" or "Right" (with a tenebrous "Middle" never fully understood or explained satisfactorily, nor given much credence), and in which "Liberal" is almost invariably conflated with "Left" and "Conservative" with "Right."  To describe such a False Dilemma as "simplistic" does not even begin to encapsulate the trouble with the limited (and limiting) paradigm.  But this is a matter for another time, and I'll eventually post my as-yet-unfinished article on the subject, wherein I shall go into greater detail as to why this Black-and-White Thinking is harmful.  The article continues:

This time around, though, campaign reporters may be surprised to discover that this very typecasting language now mostly just pisses off your more alert and attentive media consumer ...

I have no idea if Warren will run, or if she'd win if she did. She has my vote, but that's beside the point. What's interesting right now is how consistently offensive the media's analysis of her "populist" approach has been.

Washington leaders and the pundits they hang out with have been living for so long in a world where elected officials don't make decisions based upon what's right for the public that they now automatically assume that any politician who does is either up to something, or has some kind of deep-seated character flaw/mental defect.

There's a lot more, but I cannot provide the full text here.  I simply cannot praise this article enough.  This is Taibbi at his finest.  Yes, he tosses a few ad Hominem characterizations into the mix, but it's excusable (at least this time around, although it has not always been so in some of his past articles);  it would be a challenge indeed to discuss some of this without referring to at least a few people as "morons."  And what's more, if he has demonstrated that they have been being foolish (and he has at least provided some evidence of this), his use of "morons" is entirely justified (possibly even to the point of these insults not being examples of fallacy;  not every "insult" is an Abusive ad Hominem, even in Philosophical discussion, if cause has been shown for use of such terms).  Of course, Logic is not the standard by which political discourse in this society measures itself (more's the pity);  it's mostly Rhetoric, and Matt Taibbi has managed to elude much use of the sophists' preferred discipline this time around and still make his points perfectly clear.

Anyway, here's the full article, which I urge you to read in its entirety:
Campaign 2016: The Dumb Season Starts Early


Related (from Jim Hightower's Commentaries):
Peeking under the Big Top at this year's three-ring election circus


Update/Related (again from Jim Hightower's Commentaries):
Wall Street warns Democrats: Avoid Populism!


Sunday, November 17, 2013

Neo-Neanderthal #Lookadouche Speaks at Texas Public School

From CultureMap Dallas:

Students at Richardson High School raised a ruckus yesterday when faith-based dating expert and motivational speaker Justin Lookadoo gave a speech on how teenage boys and girls can make sure that they are “dateable.”

Lookadoo’s speech garnered national attention from the likes of Gawker, BuzzFeed, Pajiba and Jezebel after students took to Twitter to protest — using the hashtag #lookadouche — and some walked out of the presentation early for what they felt were demeaning and stereotypical statements regarding gender roles.

On Lookadoo’s site, he lists “Dateable Rules” for both sexes. ...

He also says that girls should “Let him lead. God made guys as leaders. Dateable girls get that and let him do guy things, get a door, open a ketchup bottle. They relax and let guys be guys. Which means they don’t ask him out!!!” ...

For the guys, rule No. 1 is, “Being a guy is good. Dateable guys know they aren’t as sensitive as girls and that’s okay. They know they are stronger, more dangerous, and more adventurous and that’s okay. Dateable guys are real men who aren’t afraid to be guys.”

Rule no. 10 for guys is, “Keep it covered up. Dateable guys know that porn is bad for the spirit and the mind. They keep women covered up.”

Read more:
#Lookadouche blows up Internet with sexist dating advice at Richardson High School


From The Huffington Post:

"A Dateable girl isn't Miss Independent."

"Dateable girls know how to shut up." ...

These are some of the "Rules" that my husband, my 16 year old daughter Chloe, and 13 year old son read on the website of Justin Lookadoo when my daughter came home Tuesday night and announced that there would be a "special assembly" the next day. The school provided no information about the speaker or subject, but rumor had it his name was Justin Lookadoo.

Out of simple curiosity, we consulted the websites for Richardson High School, the PTA and Lookadoo. We learned nothing from the first two sites, but were alarmed by the third. ...

As Internet-watchers already know there was an assembly, he was the speaker, and spoke to students about dating, relationships, and gender differences. ... He went on to make numerous claims about gender differences (never acknowledging the existence of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or pansexual students, let alone how they might conduct their own dating relationships) and even addressed the topic of (heterosexual) intercourse. ...

Justin Lookadoo is in no way qualified to address children in a public school setting. Mr. Lookadoo is a religious speaker who has published religious books with a religious press. He has also published many of his religious beliefs regarding gender roles (all based on a heterosexual model in which boys and girls are to pair up) on his website. This is his professional website where one finds a press kit and books him as a speaker. Clearly, these are his professionally publicized convictions. He is certainly entitled to believe anything he likes about God and gender and if he wants to speak about that in religious venues that's perfectly legitimate, but not a public school. ...

Read more:
Standing Against Ignorance: When Justin Lookadoo Came to Richardson High School



SuccubaSuprema writes:

This is appalling.  Mind you, I live in the American South, and most women here (myself included) appreciate courtesy (I always thank a man who opens a door for me, for example;  he knows I can open the door myself, and so do I, but he's being courteous rather than insulting my ability), but Lookadoo is not merely advocating simple courtesy with assertions like "A Dateable girl isn't Miss Independent."  Some of us Southern Girls even ask guys out (especially on "Sadie Hawkins Day").  As an aside, I generally have to open things like jars and ketchup bottles (and sometimes even doors) for my dad, who is elderly and no longer has as much strength in his hands (or elsewhere) as he once did.  I wonder if Lookadoo thinks I'm not "a Dateable girl" because of this (not that I would like to be asked out by him or one of his followers).

Rule number 10 for guys looks as if it is advocating the idea that "guys" should force women to wear burqas.  One bit of Lookadoo's perspective (not quoted above), from his book Dateable, says:

Please, please don't tease us. To show us your hot little body … and then tell us we can't touch it is being a tease. You can't look that sexy and then tell us to be on our best behavior.

-- Source

Some (such as the author of the article just linked) have interpreted this statement as an attempt to justify "unwanted physical attention" (possibly even rape).  Such attitudes have no place in the 21st century, let alone in an assembly sponsored by a public school.

Inviting a speaker of this type to address students in a public school, even in Texas, is a violation of the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Lookadoo is obviously a misogynist and a religious nutjob (and probably a homophobe and transphobe as well).  His biases should not be promoted by any public school.


A Question for Those Who Insist that "Female Parts" Are Required to Make Use of the Ladies' Room

From The Huffington Post:

A British teenager said she was in "total shock" to learn that she had been born without a vagina.

During a routine visit to the doctor, Jacqui Beck, 17, mentioned that she hadn't started getting her periods. Tests soon showed that she had MRKH syndrome, a genetic condition that meant she had been born without a vagina, womb or cervix.

"I left the doctor's [office] in tears. I would never know what it was like to give birth, be pregnant, have a period. All the things I had imagined doing suddenly got erased from my future," Beck told the Daily Mail. "I was really angry and felt like I wasn’t a real woman any more."

Shocking as it may seem, Beck is not alone. In fact, her condition isn't even especially rare. According to the National Institutes of Health, Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (named for the physicians that first diagnosed it), or MRKH, affects one in 4,500 newborn girls.

Read more:
Jacqui Beck Learns She Was Born With No Vagina; British Teen Born With MRKH




SuccubaSuprema writes:

In discussions of the State of California's School Success and Opportunity Act (AB 1266), the State of Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (Title 24, Article 34, Part 6, Colorado Revised Statutes), and similar laws, some persons with whom I have interacted have said that a vagina (their specific choice of words) is necessary to use the ladies' facilities.  Thus, I have to ask, "Would you allow Ms. Beck and others with MRKH access to a public ladies' room?"

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Profiteering from Marginalization

From linguistic pulse:

We live in a world where men’s practices and ways of being are largely viewed as ‘the norm’. Women, to the extent, that they are even recognized as having practices and ways of being are seen as needing to fix these things in order to ‘be successful’ in society. Our discourse about communication in the workplace in particular presents men’s practices in a positive light (for example, ‘assertive’ and ‘tough’) and women’s practices mainly in a negative light (for example, ‘overly-emotional’ and ‘weak’).

Read more:
Communication skills for women: Profiting off of the marginalization of women in the workplace




Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Government Shutdown Over, Default Averted, Debt Ceiling Raised

From CBS News:

Senate passes bill to end shutdown, avert default; House to follow

House Passes Bill to End Shutdown, Obama to Sign


SuccubaSuprema writes:  Watching the vote being taken in the House of Representatives (on C-Span, because I'm not the only person in the house and the other person was insistent on watching the actual vote), I could not help but notice that every vote against this was cast by a Republican.  This intransigence is due to a fallacy named variously "Bifurcation Fallacy," "Black-and-White Thinking," and "False Dilemma" (among other less common names), about which (and related matters) I am still working on a somewhat lengthy post.  Fortunately, some members of that party behaved responsibly and voted for it.

Updates:

Central to the Topic

CBS News:
Congress ends shutdown, averts default, but at what cost?

CNN:
There's a little pork in that bill: The 5 most surprising provisions in the debt deal

SuccubaSuprema writes:  Most of this "pork" is not even remotely controversial.

Also from CNN:
Republican congressman: It was worth the fight

SuccubaSuprema writes:  Come back from Lala-Land, Representative Mulvaney.  The real world is calling you (and all the other "Republican" Representatives and Senators who voted against an end to the shutdown) to pull your head out of your behind and face the simple fact that you're out of touch and in denial.  Nobody wants this childish kind of nonsense except Far Right Wing Extremists, of whom there are fortunately far fewer than you seem to believe.

Then again ...

ThinkProgress:
Ted Cruz Admits Budget Standoff Was All About Building Fundraising Lists

SuccubaSuprema writes:  Maybe the shutdown is seen by those Far Right Wing Extremists who raised funds in excess of $1 million as a result of the stunt as "worth" the so-called "fight," but what about the damage done to the rest of the nation (and the public relations disaster for the Republican Party which is now suffering low approval ratings), and the economic costs?  Clearly, non-patriotic opportunism is alive and well in the 21st century.

The New York Times:
Republicans Back Down, Ending Crisis Over Shutdown and Debt Limit

Hands Empty but Spirit Unbowed, House Republicans Take Stock

The Washington Post:
Who voted against the Senate bill to end the government shutdown?

The Blaze:
U.S. House Passes Budget Deal, (Almost) Ending Shutdown – How Did Your Rep. Vote?

Jim Hightower's Commentaries:
A Congress of comics: Laugh 'til it hurts

The Huffington Post:
Michele Bachmann: Government Reopening Is 'A Very Sad Day'

Talking Points Memo:
Conservatives Learned The Wrong Lessons From The Shutdown Debacle

Fallout

NBC News:
Poll: Amid shutdown, Republican falls further behind in race for Va. governor

The New York Times:
Calling America: Hello? Hello? Hello? Hello?

Voters’ Anger Over Shutdown Is Inspiring Democrats to Run

Revisionism

Slate:
The GOP’s Alamo:  Republicans are wasting no time in rewriting the history of their own defeat.

SuccubaSuprema writes:  This is hardly surprising, as it fits the pattern of behavior the Far Right Wing Extremists have demonstrated repeatedly.  The story is, however, worth reading, because Knowledge Is Power.  Even more outrageous, though, is this next claim, picked up by The New Civil Rights Movement.

The New Civil Rights Movement:
Michele Bachmann Explains How Shutdown Ended: ‘Republicans Were The Adults In The Room’

SuccubaSuprema writes:  Come again?  David Badash (the author of the article) summed it up rather nicely:  "Michele Bachmann‘s grasp on reality is getting weaker by the day. ... Let’s remember for a moment that the Tea Party is who created the shutdown and brought our nation to the brink of default."

(Semi-)Related

CBS News:
Government shutdown, debt ceiling vote interrupted by House stenographer

US News & World Report:
House Stenographer Dragged From House Floor During Shutdown Vote

ABC News:
House Stenographer Credits ‘Holy Spirit’ for Her Rant Against Congress

SuccubaSuprema writes:  The Supreme Council of the 33° of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the SMJ has a nice F.A.Q. page which should dispel at least some of the assertions of the woman in question (of course, the reader will have to be rational if he or she seeks the truth, and part of being rational means letting go of bias, unwarranted assumptions, and paranoid propaganda).

Disclaimer:  many of the men in my family are (or were before they passed from this life) Freemasons, and several of the women in my family are members of the Order of the Eastern Star (as I once was myself before I stopped paying my dues because I had little time to be active) and/or other Auxiliary Bodies;  some will see this as cause for an allegation of vested interest, while others will recognize that I might actually know a little something about the organizations in question from first- and second-hand experience, rather than bias based on whispered rumors or shouted scare tactics invented by enemies of liberty.  Note, however, that I do not claim to speak for Freemasonry (no woman can be a Mason in a regular, legitimate Lodge or Masonic Body) nor any of its Auxiliary Bodies (some legitimate Auxiliary Bodies admit women as well as men, and some are for women only).  I certainly make no claim of speaking for every individual member of one of these legitimate groups, since some of the members may not be representative of the ideals of the organizations.  I myself am not representative of the ideals of the Order of the Eastern Star, which is a very definitely Christian organization, whereas I later became a traditional polytheist (which is another reason I stopped being active and subsequently stopped paying my dues);  note, however, that most legitimate Masonic and Auxiliary Bodies are non-sectarian to the point of not requiring affiliation with any particular religion or espousing any dogma apart from belief in some "Supreme Being" (specifics are left up to the individual to decide for him/herself) and the immortality of the human soul.  I simply point to sources of true information on the subject, in an effort to counter lies.