5 Subjects picked by psycho_kris
Ahh... one day I'll learn to use tags. Today is not that day.
Topics are:
1. Political correctness
2. European Union
3. Wine of beer?
4. Freedom fighters or terrorists?
5. Top 5 rants about life
1. Political correctness
I am more in favour of political correctness than you might believe but also less in favour of it than might be expected considering my other left-leaning views. My reasoning is this: Language shapes thought, by changing language we change our thinking. People have known this at one level or another for centuries, consider the English ban on speaking Gaelic and Welsh. No other policy had such a devastating effect on the cultural continuity, the culture of the Celtic peoples. Obviously this wasn’t the initial intention but it was most effective. Have you ever tried to learn a foreign language? There comes a point where you stop composing what you want to say in your L1 and start trying to _think_ in L2. That’s really hard and you’ll find yourself feeling really stupid as you reach for words and find they’re not there. Language as I say, shapes thought.
Which brings me to being PC, something which comes naturally to me (ho ho), the idea here is that when you hang a label on people you have prejudices and associations with that name. The most obvious things are labels like “negro”, “spaz” or “paki”. These have such long associations with derogatory terms that using them (and worse) is rightly incendiary to the people the words are used about. If a word is used with violence and hate by people to you often enough then you’ll learn to react that way too. And yet, these words, in themselves and stripped of context, aren’t bad ones. Negro means black, and was a term adopted by black Americans to describe themselves as “black” had become a term of abuse, then negro itself became a term of abuse and the circle turns round to black again. Spastic is an actual medical condition, it’s not much fun but the abbreviation enters the language as a term of general abuse. And as for “Paki”? It’s short for Pakistani, a nationality. These words however _aren’t_ stripped of cultural context. They come loaded with a history of abuse and degradation and labeling that make them sharp and pointy tools in the racist armoury. By making these unacceptable terms to use in public or indeed private (yes Carol Thatcher, we’re looking at _you_) we remove an important part of the racist armoury, they are denied conceptual space to practice bigotry.
Common things that I find a bit shocking: Australians calling each other “wogs”, for a start that seems a bit inaccurate to me because that was, as far as I know, the rude name for people from the Indian sub-continent, so finding white people calling other white people “a wog” is just bizarre.
The use of the term “gay” by LARPers. I happily accept that when you’re 15, you’re an idiot. I know I was and an offensive one too, but when one grows up, one should know when to cut it out. If you trip over a tent peg, or find a rule obnoxious, curse the object and query the rule but don’t say they’re “gay”. I know I used to use it all the time and then I was sitting playing board games with some friends and having little luck and I cursed the gayness of it all. Then I realised that I was doing this in front of a very good and supportive friend of mine who also happens to prefer members of the same sex. What the hell? So I stopped. Whether it’s made a big difference to my thinking it’s hard to say, but I’ve stopped associating gay with bad and I think that’s a step in the right direction.
2. European Union
Before World War I there was something called “the balance of power” in Europe where England and Germany were trying to ensure that their enemies didn’t get the upper hand over them. We all know how well that one sorted itself out. Before that you have hundreds and hundreds of years of Europeans fighting and killing each other. This happened every couple of years as far as I can see with only small breaks to re-arm and grow the next generation. Now? Can anyone really see Germany marching into France with an army? That a little Corsican could mobilize France to launch a military expedition against all its neighbours? That the Italians would try and convert the rest of the landmass to their thinking at the point of a sword? The EU brings peace of a pretty guaranteed sort and that’s got to be a good thing. Do I think that unelected people should make decisions for me? Not really, but in reality I get to vote maybe once every 5 years for one of two parties with a realistic hope of winning and all they have are slightly different ways to privatize services and give tax breaks to rich people. I already _have_ unelected people running my life. I didn’t elect my boss either. I don’t think the Union can really get much bigger at the moment, it needs time for people to integrate together and I just wish Britain would stop shilly-shallying and say, “Right, pound’s been good, but let’s scrap it and get the Euro”. The EU hasn’t had an unsullied track record of sanity and openness but in a century where millions of people died in pointless bloody conflict, after centuries of pointless bloody conflict, I’d welcome a more unified Europe.
3. Wine or beer?
Feh. We’ll skip the whole “Beer is an anglo-saxon drink and wine is only a relic of French imperialist snobbery from the time of William the Conqueror”, John O’Farrell does it much better in his book “A completely impartial history of Britain”. I’d rather drink a good white wine than a good beer, a good beer than a bad white wine and I’d rather drink cider than either of the above (because it’s nicer. And strongbow isn’t cider, it’s what’s left when you’ve used all the good stuff). And if I can’t find something that I want to drink? I won’t drink at all. I don’t need it and don’t see why I should.
4. Freedom fighters or terrorists?
Depends who you ask dunnit and you’re asking me. I think that as a bench mark I would regard anyone who targets civilians in order to use terror as a weapon as a terrorist. If you’re solely targeting military forces who’ve invaded your country, you’re almost certainly a freedom fighter. If the majority of people of the country you’re living in think you’re a terrorist, well, you’re a terrorist. If they actively support you, then you may well be a freedom fighter. Quite frankly the two tend to be the same.
So: Palestianians dropping rockets onto Israel. Terrorists. They’re attacking civilians to spread terror. Israelis driving bulldozers and tanks into Gaza and shooting people. Terrorists. They’re just better funded and have better kit.
5. Top 5 rants about life
I think my number one life would be “What are women thinking?” Like seriously. Women don’t get paid the same as men, women are still labouring under the double standard of sexuality, women are still expected to take on the lion’s share of housework and domestic chores. Life is better than the serfdom of being virtually owned as the Victorians had in all but name, but honestly. Where is the sisterly solidarity? In particular I get quite vexed at the sexual aspects of it all.
The “Madonna-Whore dichotomy” is the particular case reserved for people who see women as either untouchable paragons of “virtue” (i.e. chastity) and motherly love (“Madonna”s not to be confused with the singer) or slatterns and sluts who’ll fuck but are morally bankrupt. As a moment’s introspection will show this is hard-core crazy. Women who have sex are essential to the continuation of the human race. Since the last time I looked most people enjoy sex. It’s fun. In fact it’s used as the standard of fun, (“Better than sex!” anyone?) so why on earth wouldn’t women enjoy it? In the same way that it’s the unquestionable right of men to enjoy sex, it _should_ be the unquestionable right of women to enjoy it. The fact that it even occurs to anyone to have to mention it shows what a long way women have to go to achieve social parity with men. What gripes me though is not when _men_ evidence this “Madonna-whore dichotomy”, after all, they’re going with what they’ve been raised to believe, no matter how stupid. It’s when _women_ do it. I mean for goodness sake! The self-hatred, the confusion, the hating on other women! What the hell? If you wouldn’t like to be called a tart or a slapper than why are you applying that label to other women? The whole double standard of men should have as much sex as they can but women should keep themselves pure is quite bad enough when men do it. They don’t know any better, they’re taught by their mothers and society suits them the way it is. When women do it, they’re punishing themselves and that’s just stupid.
I’m sure I rant about other things but nothing else bugs anyway near as much as the above.
Topics are:
1. Political correctness
2. European Union
3. Wine of beer?
4. Freedom fighters or terrorists?
5. Top 5 rants about life
1. Political correctness
I am more in favour of political correctness than you might believe but also less in favour of it than might be expected considering my other left-leaning views. My reasoning is this: Language shapes thought, by changing language we change our thinking. People have known this at one level or another for centuries, consider the English ban on speaking Gaelic and Welsh. No other policy had such a devastating effect on the cultural continuity, the culture of the Celtic peoples. Obviously this wasn’t the initial intention but it was most effective. Have you ever tried to learn a foreign language? There comes a point where you stop composing what you want to say in your L1 and start trying to _think_ in L2. That’s really hard and you’ll find yourself feeling really stupid as you reach for words and find they’re not there. Language as I say, shapes thought.
Which brings me to being PC, something which comes naturally to me (ho ho), the idea here is that when you hang a label on people you have prejudices and associations with that name. The most obvious things are labels like “negro”, “spaz” or “paki”. These have such long associations with derogatory terms that using them (and worse) is rightly incendiary to the people the words are used about. If a word is used with violence and hate by people to you often enough then you’ll learn to react that way too. And yet, these words, in themselves and stripped of context, aren’t bad ones. Negro means black, and was a term adopted by black Americans to describe themselves as “black” had become a term of abuse, then negro itself became a term of abuse and the circle turns round to black again. Spastic is an actual medical condition, it’s not much fun but the abbreviation enters the language as a term of general abuse. And as for “Paki”? It’s short for Pakistani, a nationality. These words however _aren’t_ stripped of cultural context. They come loaded with a history of abuse and degradation and labeling that make them sharp and pointy tools in the racist armoury. By making these unacceptable terms to use in public or indeed private (yes Carol Thatcher, we’re looking at _you_) we remove an important part of the racist armoury, they are denied conceptual space to practice bigotry.
Common things that I find a bit shocking: Australians calling each other “wogs”, for a start that seems a bit inaccurate to me because that was, as far as I know, the rude name for people from the Indian sub-continent, so finding white people calling other white people “a wog” is just bizarre.
The use of the term “gay” by LARPers. I happily accept that when you’re 15, you’re an idiot. I know I was and an offensive one too, but when one grows up, one should know when to cut it out. If you trip over a tent peg, or find a rule obnoxious, curse the object and query the rule but don’t say they’re “gay”. I know I used to use it all the time and then I was sitting playing board games with some friends and having little luck and I cursed the gayness of it all. Then I realised that I was doing this in front of a very good and supportive friend of mine who also happens to prefer members of the same sex. What the hell? So I stopped. Whether it’s made a big difference to my thinking it’s hard to say, but I’ve stopped associating gay with bad and I think that’s a step in the right direction.
2. European Union
Before World War I there was something called “the balance of power” in Europe where England and Germany were trying to ensure that their enemies didn’t get the upper hand over them. We all know how well that one sorted itself out. Before that you have hundreds and hundreds of years of Europeans fighting and killing each other. This happened every couple of years as far as I can see with only small breaks to re-arm and grow the next generation. Now? Can anyone really see Germany marching into France with an army? That a little Corsican could mobilize France to launch a military expedition against all its neighbours? That the Italians would try and convert the rest of the landmass to their thinking at the point of a sword? The EU brings peace of a pretty guaranteed sort and that’s got to be a good thing. Do I think that unelected people should make decisions for me? Not really, but in reality I get to vote maybe once every 5 years for one of two parties with a realistic hope of winning and all they have are slightly different ways to privatize services and give tax breaks to rich people. I already _have_ unelected people running my life. I didn’t elect my boss either. I don’t think the Union can really get much bigger at the moment, it needs time for people to integrate together and I just wish Britain would stop shilly-shallying and say, “Right, pound’s been good, but let’s scrap it and get the Euro”. The EU hasn’t had an unsullied track record of sanity and openness but in a century where millions of people died in pointless bloody conflict, after centuries of pointless bloody conflict, I’d welcome a more unified Europe.
3. Wine or beer?
Feh. We’ll skip the whole “Beer is an anglo-saxon drink and wine is only a relic of French imperialist snobbery from the time of William the Conqueror”, John O’Farrell does it much better in his book “A completely impartial history of Britain”. I’d rather drink a good white wine than a good beer, a good beer than a bad white wine and I’d rather drink cider than either of the above (because it’s nicer. And strongbow isn’t cider, it’s what’s left when you’ve used all the good stuff). And if I can’t find something that I want to drink? I won’t drink at all. I don’t need it and don’t see why I should.
4. Freedom fighters or terrorists?
Depends who you ask dunnit and you’re asking me. I think that as a bench mark I would regard anyone who targets civilians in order to use terror as a weapon as a terrorist. If you’re solely targeting military forces who’ve invaded your country, you’re almost certainly a freedom fighter. If the majority of people of the country you’re living in think you’re a terrorist, well, you’re a terrorist. If they actively support you, then you may well be a freedom fighter. Quite frankly the two tend to be the same.
So: Palestianians dropping rockets onto Israel. Terrorists. They’re attacking civilians to spread terror. Israelis driving bulldozers and tanks into Gaza and shooting people. Terrorists. They’re just better funded and have better kit.
5. Top 5 rants about life
I think my number one life would be “What are women thinking?” Like seriously. Women don’t get paid the same as men, women are still labouring under the double standard of sexuality, women are still expected to take on the lion’s share of housework and domestic chores. Life is better than the serfdom of being virtually owned as the Victorians had in all but name, but honestly. Where is the sisterly solidarity? In particular I get quite vexed at the sexual aspects of it all.
The “Madonna-Whore dichotomy” is the particular case reserved for people who see women as either untouchable paragons of “virtue” (i.e. chastity) and motherly love (“Madonna”s not to be confused with the singer) or slatterns and sluts who’ll fuck but are morally bankrupt. As a moment’s introspection will show this is hard-core crazy. Women who have sex are essential to the continuation of the human race. Since the last time I looked most people enjoy sex. It’s fun. In fact it’s used as the standard of fun, (“Better than sex!” anyone?) so why on earth wouldn’t women enjoy it? In the same way that it’s the unquestionable right of men to enjoy sex, it _should_ be the unquestionable right of women to enjoy it. The fact that it even occurs to anyone to have to mention it shows what a long way women have to go to achieve social parity with men. What gripes me though is not when _men_ evidence this “Madonna-whore dichotomy”, after all, they’re going with what they’ve been raised to believe, no matter how stupid. It’s when _women_ do it. I mean for goodness sake! The self-hatred, the confusion, the hating on other women! What the hell? If you wouldn’t like to be called a tart or a slapper than why are you applying that label to other women? The whole double standard of men should have as much sex as they can but women should keep themselves pure is quite bad enough when men do it. They don’t know any better, they’re taught by their mothers and society suits them the way it is. When women do it, they’re punishing themselves and that’s just stupid.
I’m sure I rant about other things but nothing else bugs anyway near as much as the above.