More on the "Hussein" middle name
At the beginning of the week, I made a post to Facebook opposing the campaign for all users to change their middle names to "Hussein". My response to the campaign was instant: I had lost respect for anyone who had participated by changing their middle name on Facebook (herein: the "Hussens"). My written response had one significant shortcoming. In telling people to "stop being stupid sheep", I had given them permission to close their minds to any logic I would present and instead focus on the fact that I was being insulting. As my goal was not to insult, but to get people to think, that is something that I accept to be a wrong on my part.
But even my accepting guilt for having inadvertently insulted doesn't validate their actions. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it all and I thought I'd write it down so that I remember it in the future. First off, the "Husseins" thought they had good reasons for doing it. It was a symbolic gesture against ignorance - an action in response to a wrong. So let us begin by considering the nature of this wrong.
Is it right to use a candidate's middle name to judge his suitability for the office of President of the United States? Clearly, the answer is no. The criteria that should be used to judge an individual's suitability for office should be determined by the nature of that office. The most appropriate criteria to judge suitability for office of President are the candidate's prior record of actions and the candidate's conscious convictions.
One can make an argument in reason that a candidate's affiliation with groups or individuals with immoral agendas should also be considered. One can't make an argument in reason that a middle name of Hussein leads to any meaningful conclusions that can be applied toward selecting a candidate. The key principle involved in what makes the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name implication damnably wrong is that it requires that a person ignore essential facts of reality and, instead, substitute non-essentials jury-rigged with faulty logic.
So let's go back to the middle-name campaign. I agree that the initial act of using Hussein as some kind of slurr implying unsuitability for office is despicably evil. This is the main justification most people used to become "Husseins". But does identifying an act as evil mean that any action in response to it is automatically made good/sensible/right? That can only be determined by the results of the action.
1 - Inneffectuality vs. Irrationality
First, we consider the irrational persons who accept the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name argument. Here I define "irrational" to be the evasion of facts of reality and/or application of faulty logic. If you are dealing with people who have chosen not to be rational, then will becoming a "Hussein" cause them to start being logical? Will that be true if 1 million people on Facebook change their name to Hussein? If the only honest way for people to deal with one another as independent thinkers is via an exchange of facts and logic, then there is no way to reach the irrational until they decide to start being rational. And a person who is willfully ignoring facts of reality and or logic will not likely start being rational just because they notice a bunch of "Husseins" on Facebook.
2 - Ineffectual Support of a Candidate
Next, the action of becoming a "Hussein" implies support of that candidate. This amounts essentially to an ambiguous package deal where by participating in a campaign to make people less ignorant, you also "support" a candidate. For those who were already going to vote for Obama this seemed like two birds with one stone. Great! For those who don't support him but somehow thought the "Hussein" campaign was a neat idea, they had to choose between being ambiguous and not participating.
The more important question since this is being used as justification by those who *do* support Obama is whether it promotes the campaign in any meaningful way for people to know that you think it's stinky other people are misconstruing Obama's middle-name? It shouldn't make anyone who's on the fence want to vote for your candidate - not if they're the thinking sort. Only pertinent reasons should matter: not signs on a lawn, and not a middle-name on Facebook.
3- Social Pressure vs. Independent Thought
If the point of the "Hussein" campaign is to help people become aware of the subtext that "Hussein" is being conflated with "bad guy", the argument against it should be made in reason. That is to say, you have to identify the principle(s) that make the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name implication evil, as I have attempted to do above. What principles are demonstrated by changing one's middle-name to Hussein on Facebook? For the thinking person: None. The thinking person would already have rejected the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name implication. That other people agree or not is of little consequence.
For those who believe that the agreement of others is of consequence... What is the net result of a person who comes around from being ignorant because he sees that there are so many "Husseins"? This newly-reformed person has substituted social pressure for what should have been his own judgment acting on facts of reality. The fact that a large number of people agree on something does not make it right. Social pressure, deception, and fraud are not honest ways of dealing with other people as independent thinkers. (and incidentally, I am not interested in dealing with any other sort of people)
Right and wrong are based on observable facts of reality and are independent of the question of how many people agree or disagree. For a person to bow to social pressure and accede that something is good/bad/right/wrong/ignorant because other people seem to think so is just as irrational as using the wrong criteria to judge a person. It is never a virtue for a person to substitute the judgment of others for his own for any reason. To do so is to surrender the notion of liberty.
This also indicates a possible moral failing of a "Hussein" whom has chosen to participate in a campaign that fails to achieve all of it's intentions. If it is wrong for a person to change their convictions based on social pressure, it is also wrong for a "Hussein" to seek to influence people based on social pressure. Yet "Husseins" seem to be righteously proud about their choice to participate because the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name is so wrong in the first place. It is possible that some "Husseins" participate to receive the acceptance of their fellow name-changing compatriots (in effect, placing value in being perceived by others as being virtuous for knowing that something is ignorant).
Both situations manage to imply that conformity-as-such is as virtuous as rational judgment (either the conformity of the willfully ignorant to the "Husseins", or the conformity of the "Husseins" to each other). Both are wrong. Two people who agree based on their independent judgment do not need to conform - they already agree. Conformity applies to a situation where there is a disagreement and requires the suspension of rational judgment on one party to conform to the other. Thus, conformity and rational judgement are mutually exclusive.
In Conclusion
The "Hussein" campaign identifies key problems in our culture. If the trend in our culture is that people are more concerned with moral badges of honor than principles... with dealing with each other using social pressure rather than reason... then we are heading toward moral bankruptcy. My proposed solution is simple. We can choose to deal with one another only through reason, that is by presenting facts and logic to an individual thinker and letting people come to their own conclusions. We can refuse to deal with each other in any lesser way (violence, social pressure, deception, arguing in irrational non-essentials rather than fundamental principles). Politicians are products of our cultural trends as a whole. By elevating our culture, we can bring them along too.
--------------
Original Facebook Post
Hussein Middle Name = You're a Conformist = Terms Violation
Just a quick note. I've noticed people adding a middle name of "Hussein" on Facebook in some obvious solidarity move with a certain political candidate. I am no more in favor of this candidate than the other, but I would like to note for any friends of mine who have done this and still consider themselves to be independent thinkers that they are utterly failing to demonstrate their ability to exercise independent thought when they choose to do things like this.
Further, they may be interested to know that it's a violation of Facebook's Term's of Use. (see "Registration Data") http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf
Stop being stupid sheep. Stand up for ideals and principles with arguments in reason, not for hero-worship with empty gestures. You impress no one worth impressing (only other sheep), and instead serve only to denigrate yourselves.
-F
But even my accepting guilt for having inadvertently insulted doesn't validate their actions. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it all and I thought I'd write it down so that I remember it in the future. First off, the "Husseins" thought they had good reasons for doing it. It was a symbolic gesture against ignorance - an action in response to a wrong. So let us begin by considering the nature of this wrong.
Is it right to use a candidate's middle name to judge his suitability for the office of President of the United States? Clearly, the answer is no. The criteria that should be used to judge an individual's suitability for office should be determined by the nature of that office. The most appropriate criteria to judge suitability for office of President are the candidate's prior record of actions and the candidate's conscious convictions.
One can make an argument in reason that a candidate's affiliation with groups or individuals with immoral agendas should also be considered. One can't make an argument in reason that a middle name of Hussein leads to any meaningful conclusions that can be applied toward selecting a candidate. The key principle involved in what makes the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name implication damnably wrong is that it requires that a person ignore essential facts of reality and, instead, substitute non-essentials jury-rigged with faulty logic.
So let's go back to the middle-name campaign. I agree that the initial act of using Hussein as some kind of slurr implying unsuitability for office is despicably evil. This is the main justification most people used to become "Husseins". But does identifying an act as evil mean that any action in response to it is automatically made good/sensible/right? That can only be determined by the results of the action.
1 - Inneffectuality vs. Irrationality
First, we consider the irrational persons who accept the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name argument. Here I define "irrational" to be the evasion of facts of reality and/or application of faulty logic. If you are dealing with people who have chosen not to be rational, then will becoming a "Hussein" cause them to start being logical? Will that be true if 1 million people on Facebook change their name to Hussein? If the only honest way for people to deal with one another as independent thinkers is via an exchange of facts and logic, then there is no way to reach the irrational until they decide to start being rational. And a person who is willfully ignoring facts of reality and or logic will not likely start being rational just because they notice a bunch of "Husseins" on Facebook.
2 - Ineffectual Support of a Candidate
Next, the action of becoming a "Hussein" implies support of that candidate. This amounts essentially to an ambiguous package deal where by participating in a campaign to make people less ignorant, you also "support" a candidate. For those who were already going to vote for Obama this seemed like two birds with one stone. Great! For those who don't support him but somehow thought the "Hussein" campaign was a neat idea, they had to choose between being ambiguous and not participating.
The more important question since this is being used as justification by those who *do* support Obama is whether it promotes the campaign in any meaningful way for people to know that you think it's stinky other people are misconstruing Obama's middle-name? It shouldn't make anyone who's on the fence want to vote for your candidate - not if they're the thinking sort. Only pertinent reasons should matter: not signs on a lawn, and not a middle-name on Facebook.
3- Social Pressure vs. Independent Thought
If the point of the "Hussein" campaign is to help people become aware of the subtext that "Hussein" is being conflated with "bad guy", the argument against it should be made in reason. That is to say, you have to identify the principle(s) that make the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name implication evil, as I have attempted to do above. What principles are demonstrated by changing one's middle-name to Hussein on Facebook? For the thinking person: None. The thinking person would already have rejected the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name implication. That other people agree or not is of little consequence.
For those who believe that the agreement of others is of consequence... What is the net result of a person who comes around from being ignorant because he sees that there are so many "Husseins"? This newly-reformed person has substituted social pressure for what should have been his own judgment acting on facts of reality. The fact that a large number of people agree on something does not make it right. Social pressure, deception, and fraud are not honest ways of dealing with other people as independent thinkers. (and incidentally, I am not interested in dealing with any other sort of people)
Right and wrong are based on observable facts of reality and are independent of the question of how many people agree or disagree. For a person to bow to social pressure and accede that something is good/bad/right/wrong/ignorant because other people seem to think so is just as irrational as using the wrong criteria to judge a person. It is never a virtue for a person to substitute the judgment of others for his own for any reason. To do so is to surrender the notion of liberty.
This also indicates a possible moral failing of a "Hussein" whom has chosen to participate in a campaign that fails to achieve all of it's intentions. If it is wrong for a person to change their convictions based on social pressure, it is also wrong for a "Hussein" to seek to influence people based on social pressure. Yet "Husseins" seem to be righteously proud about their choice to participate because the guilty-by-reason-of-middle-name is so wrong in the first place. It is possible that some "Husseins" participate to receive the acceptance of their fellow name-changing compatriots (in effect, placing value in being perceived by others as being virtuous for knowing that something is ignorant).
Both situations manage to imply that conformity-as-such is as virtuous as rational judgment (either the conformity of the willfully ignorant to the "Husseins", or the conformity of the "Husseins" to each other). Both are wrong. Two people who agree based on their independent judgment do not need to conform - they already agree. Conformity applies to a situation where there is a disagreement and requires the suspension of rational judgment on one party to conform to the other. Thus, conformity and rational judgement are mutually exclusive.
In Conclusion
The "Hussein" campaign identifies key problems in our culture. If the trend in our culture is that people are more concerned with moral badges of honor than principles... with dealing with each other using social pressure rather than reason... then we are heading toward moral bankruptcy. My proposed solution is simple. We can choose to deal with one another only through reason, that is by presenting facts and logic to an individual thinker and letting people come to their own conclusions. We can refuse to deal with each other in any lesser way (violence, social pressure, deception, arguing in irrational non-essentials rather than fundamental principles). Politicians are products of our cultural trends as a whole. By elevating our culture, we can bring them along too.
--------------
Original Facebook Post
Hussein Middle Name = You're a Conformist = Terms Violation
Just a quick note. I've noticed people adding a middle name of "Hussein" on Facebook in some obvious solidarity move with a certain political candidate. I am no more in favor of this candidate than the other, but I would like to note for any friends of mine who have done this and still consider themselves to be independent thinkers that they are utterly failing to demonstrate their ability to exercise independent thought when they choose to do things like this.
Further, they may be interested to know that it's a violation of Facebook's Term's of Use. (see "Registration Data") http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf
Stop being stupid sheep. Stand up for ideals and principles with arguments in reason, not for hero-worship with empty gestures. You impress no one worth impressing (only other sheep), and instead serve only to denigrate yourselves.
-F