| 2M4M |
[11 Apr 2009|12:21am] |
|
The National Organization for (heterosexual only) Marriage is running a campaign called "Two Million for Marriage" which they are abbreviating 2M4M. Too bad they failed to register 2M4M.org! Spread the google bomb, folks.
|
|
| Go Vermont (and DC)! |
[07 Apr 2009|09:59pm] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 contemplative |
] |
Six by Twelve looks to be on track.
Of course, when I sent a one-line email early this afternoon to sph-open* celebrating this fact, Mormon-Boy* sent me a private email declaring this "a provocation and insensitive to those who support traditional marriage for religious reasons" and threatening legal and/or academic disciplinary action against me for religious discrimination. I replied, he replied, I replied again. Apparently he's now reported me to Academic Affairs, to whom I've forwarded the emails in question. Standard sparring with a jackass with a persecution complex; nothing much will come of it.
Just now, I got another email, from a member of the SPH LGBTQ group, thanking me for spreading the news, having the courage to take a stand, and supporting an inclusive environment. It feels nice, albeit a little strange (or at least unfamiliar *g*), to be told that my online activities are having a positive effect. It's also a useful reminder that these issues are not abstract ones to everyone on the listserve - a fact which I certainly recognize in the abstract, but don't always think about in practice.
*At some point, I'm going to need explain the nature of sph-open and post a rehash of the great sph-open flamewar of last semester, but right now I have too much work to do.
|
|
| Thoughts on Privilege, Mark I |
[30 Mar 2009|11:53pm] |
I have a problem with the idea of "privilege" as it's understood by a lot of progressives.
Roughly speaking, the notion seems to be this (and yes, I've read Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack, and possibly should reread it and do a follow-up post examining the detailed ideas presented therein, but it's late and I want to offload what I'm thinking about at the moment, maybe get some comments, and go to bed, and I know that if I try to do an analysis of Unpacking . . . right now, it'll turn into a fisking, and I'll be up until some ungodly hour):
Privilege is unearned societal advantage.
Now here's the problem: I don't believe in society - at least, not the way most progressives seem to. Let's start with some definitions:
Social atomism: The idea that individuals exist and interact, and society is simply an abstraction for patterns in those interactions, and not a thing in itself.
Social holism: The idea that society is more than the sum of its parts.
Liberalism: The theory of government that is fundamentally concerned with preserving the rights of individuals.
Progressivism: The theory of government that is fundamentally concerned with improving "society as a whole."
Now, I am a liberal and a social atomist, and looking at the definiton for privilege given above from an atomist standpoint, it's clear that it's not a thing in itself, but merely an abstraction. So why not replace it with what it's an abstraction for?
Here's how I see it: Privilege is unearned situational advantage.
Now, it's worth pointing out that this definition is frequently equivalent, or at least close, to the one given early on in this essay - after all, if society is an abstraction for patterns of interactions, then societal advantage is an abstraction for patterns of situational advantage, and so the two notions will often coincide. Certainly, if we integrate over time the advantages and disadvantages that I derive from being white, male, or "straight"*, then for any of those traits, the final sum is positive, and not trivially so. So when conservatives say that, for example, racism is dead except for a few fringe loonies, I'm not on board.
Nevertheless, it seems absurd to say that as a white man I simply "have privilege" that a black man does not, as though that situation were static and unchanging. If I am alone, and a group of black men decide to hassle me, then the privilege is theirs, since they have the (unearned) advantage of numbers.
This is the root of my objection to statements like "You can't be racist against whites, because racism is prejudice + privilege**" - while it's true that whites are on average privileged relative to POC***, there are many specific situations in which a POC has privilege over a white, and is therefore capable of being racist, even by that dubious definition.
I think it's time for bed now. I'll see what comments, if any, my ramblings have garnered in the morning.
*A weird abstraction itself, in that I don't see who I want to date, spend my life with, or just plain fuck as particularly connected to what dangly bits I have, but useful here in that the fact that I want to "be with" (in whatever sense) members of the of the opposite sex, in itself, typically generates substantially more advantages that the fact that I want to "be with" women, in itself, does - although here too there are exceptions, as in the fact that, because I am attracted to women, I am casually exposed to a far greater quantity of arousing imagery on a daily basis than I would be if I were attracted to men, and the fact that I am a man has nothing to do with it.
**Where did that definition come from, anyway? I hear it a lot in academic or pseudo-academic circles, generally taken as a given, but it seems to me to be a distortion of the long-accepted meaning of the term, and I've never seen any source cited for it.
***My rant on that term another time.
|
|
|
[13 Nov 2008|10:53pm] |
Whiny Mormons annoy me. Whiny Mormons who forward private emails to the Dean to get people who dislike them in trouble annoy me even more.
ETA: When I reply to them, and they send me email threatening legal action if I ever mail them again (including, presumably in response to the email they've just sent me), that's just a bonus.
|
|
| Political Meme |
[08 Nov 2008|11:21pm] |
|
Copy this sentence into your livejournal if you're in a heterosexual marriage/relationship (or if you think you might be someday), and you don't want it "protected" by the bigots who think that gay marriage hurts it somehow.
|
|
|
[27 Sep 2008|10:57pm] |
Great post with political M:tG cards:
|
|
| A bit of verse written by the stream |
[14 Apr 2008|12:47am] |
| [ |
mood |
| |
 amused |
] |
So, I'm trying to write short poems from time to time, and I decided to try a tercet of iambic trimeter, and here's what resulted (written all on one line, like a traditional haiku, just to be a dick *g*):
Beside the singing stream, as ripples dance and flow, cliches invade my verse.
|
|
|
[17 Mar 2008|01:16am] |
Approximate tasting notes:
Laphroaig 30: Subtle. Not syrupy the way old bourbons are, nor strongly oaky. Laphroaig character present but heavily tamed. Best of the lot for drinking straight, but also 10.50 for 1/2 ounce in a bar or $200+ for a bottle.
Laphroaig 10: Aggressive as fuck. Fascinating for a few sips straight, but even 1/2 ounce seems excessive to drink all straight. Watered down with ~1:1 water:whiskey still potent but more managable. Quite pleasant at ~2:1, though perhaps a bit less interesting. Best P/V ratio for drinking with 1+:1 water.
Laphroaig 15: Not nearly as subtle as the 30, but far less agressive than the 10. Probably the best P/V ratio for drinking straight.
Auchentoshen 21: Too woody straight, but amazing with a moderate (perhaps 1:1?) addition of water. Wood is tamed and apple is brought out. Price for a bottle unknown, so hard to evaluate P/V ratio. A very nice change of pace after an evening of drinking various ages of Laphroaig.
After 4 half-pours, I shouldn't feel so drunk, should I?
ETA: Of course, low blood sugar combined with moderately bad dehydration might have something to do with that.
|
|
| Philosophy |
[19 Feb 2008|03:02am] |
|
I recommend the reading of Epicurus to everyone, especially the Letter to Menoeceus, which is only 5 pages long and probably available online. More in the morning.
|
|
| Feeling better now |
[11 Jan 2008|11:41am] |
|
Sleep, even inadequate sleep, due to some nasty insomnia, definately improves matters.
|
|
| Clinton got smacked DOWN |
[03 Jan 2008|11:08pm] |
|
I'd've preferred an Edwards victory, but Obama getting a solid lead and Edwards edging out Clinton for third ain't bad either.
|
|
| Mercy-killing |
[17 Oct 2007|12:15am] |
|
Run over a possum today. Had to run over it again after the first (relatively slow - I braked, but not hard enough) blow didn't kill it but (I think) crushed a lung. So it goes.
|
|
|
[10 Jul 2007|11:55am] |
|
Working now.
|
|
| Somewhat better now |
[10 Jul 2007|09:46am] |
|
Even on 4 hours of sleep (and six the night before that), not yet caffeinated, coughing, and still just a tad freaked . . . it is AMAZING what a good breakfast (hot homemade tortillas) will do for your mood. Hopefully the headache will go away when I get some coffee.
|
|
|
[16 Apr 2007|06:43pm] |
|
Am at the Math library, desperately trying to convince myself that I should work.
|
|
|
[19 Feb 2007|01:48am] |
|
I'm thinking I should start posting more, even if it's just "what i did today" type entries. It would at least force me to give some thought to what I've managed to accomplish each day, which sadly often isn't much. Anyone want to lay odds on whether I'll follow through on this better than I have on any of my previous resolutions?
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cimadness's journal