Clarity in Madness

2M4M

2009-04-11T04:25:17Z

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)!

2009-04-08T02:30:30Z

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

2009-03-31T05:00:08Z

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.

cimadness @ 2008-11-24T23:00:00

2008-11-25T04:00:20Z

32 of 33, baby!

cimadness @ 2008-11-13T22:53:00

2008-11-14T03:54:13Z

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

2008-11-09T04:21:18Z

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.

A convenient listing of Mormon-owned companies

2008-11-07T23:34:25Z

Let the boycotting begin!

cimadness @ 2008-09-27T22:57:00

2008-09-28T02:59:13Z

Great post with political M:tG cards:

Stolen from elsewhere for my own amusement

2008-05-11T20:30:53Z

The Duggars:

A bit of verse written by the stream

2008-04-14T04:49:27Z

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.

cimadness @ 2008-03-17T01:16:00

2008-03-17T05:25:08Z

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

2008-02-19T08:04:37Z

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

2008-01-11T16:42:15Z

Sleep, even inadequate sleep, due to some nasty insomnia, definately improves matters.

Clinton got smacked DOWN

2008-01-04T04:09:32Z

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

2007-10-17T04:39:00Z

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.

MCAT scores

2007-09-18T00:54:22Z

43R, bitches!

cimadness @ 2007-07-10T11:55:00

2007-07-10T15:55:41Z

Working now.

Somewhat better now

2007-07-10T13:47:49Z

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.

cimadness @ 2007-04-16T18:43:00

2007-04-16T22:48:30Z

Am at the Math library, desperately trying to convince myself that I should work.

cimadness @ 2007-02-19T01:48:00

2007-02-19T07:02:45Z

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?

Cleaning House

2006-06-25T06:17:25Z

I'm trying to make my life more organized, both online and off. As part of that organization, I will be purging from my friends-list a number of people that I friended a while ago but don't read on a regular basis, and who I don't think read me. If anyone who actually reads this LJ gets unfriended and wants to be refriended, just let me know. The purpose of this purge is not actually to restrict access to my locked posts, but to unclutter my info page by removing people who neither read me nor are read by me.

ETA: If I never added you to begin with, and you would like to be added now, again, just let me know.

cimadness @ 2006-04-21T14:39:00

2006-04-21T18:48:51Z

You scored as Old School Democrat. Old school Democrats emphasize economic justice and opportunity. The Democratic ideal is best summarized by the Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

</td>

Old School Democrat

90%

Green

75%

New Democrat

70%

Foreign Policy Hawk

60%

Socially Conservative Republican

55%

Libertarian

30%

Pro Business Republican

15%

What's Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com

Here are the other philosophy descriptions:

You scored as Green. The Green Party believes in an America where decisions are made by the people and not by a few giant corporations. Their environmental goal is a sustainable world where nature and human society co-exist in harmony.

You scored as New Democrat. New Democrats emphasize fiscal conservatism, and have a strong preference for the free market. They believe in small-scale programs that provide targetted help to those in need, while working with the business community.

You scored as Foreign Policy Hawk. Foreign policy hawks believe that the spread of liberty throughout the world is the historic mission of the United States, and that it is vital for our security. They can be found in both political parties, and are united in their desire for a large military and a highly assertive foreign policy.

You scored as Socially Conservative Republican. Social conservatives share a belief in traditional morality and social mores and the desire to preserve these in present day society, often through civil law or regulation. The government should use its influence in the public square to support traditional family values.

You scored as Libertarian. Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering, as long as you don't violate the rights of others. This translates into strong protections for privacy and property rights, and a weak to non-existent social safety net.

You scored as Pro Business Republican. Pro-business Republicans support supply-side economics. By cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and supporting large corporations, they want to spur innovation and create economic growth that benefits all Americans.

South Dakota Abortion Ban

2006-02-24T03:17:31Z

For those who haven't seen this already the South Dakota legislature has passed a ban on all abortions, with exceptions only for the life (but not the health) of the mother.

I'm pro-life. Hell, let's drop the vague and propagandistic terminology: I support banning abortion in all cases except for when a) the mother is the victim of rape or sexual abuse, b) an abortion is necessary to preserve the health of the mother, or c) the fetus is severely damaged - on the level of anencephaly or Tay-Sachs homozygosity.

I could argue that this measure goes too far, by not allowing abortions of brain-dead (or even brain-lacking) fetuses, by forcing rape victims to undergo further trauma, and by not granting exceptions in cases where the mother's health may be damaged without her life being lost. I believe that, and I could spend time arguing it, but I feel that it would be futile, for several reasons. Although damaged or brain-dead fetuses are a more complex issue, my other two objections regarding scope boil down to the fact that, while I believe the life of the fetus has significant value, I do not believe that it is equal in value to the life of the mother. The hardliners will therefore dismiss my argument just as easily as they dismiss the arguments of the pro-choicers. At the same time, I doubt that anyone on the pro-choice side is interested in my analysis of why fetal rights should extend only so far, as they generally don't believe in fetal rights to begin with. Most importantly, though, the scope of the ban is not the source of my primary objection.

What I object to most about this law is not what it does, but what it doesn't do. With regards to banning abortion, I think it's far too broad, but the general idea is right. However, while banning abortions will reduce the number performed, it won't eliminate them completely - not by a long shot. To achieve that, or even come close, will take a lot more. So where is the mandate for intelligent sex education, for using curricula proven to reduce teen pregnancy rates? Where is the funding to subsidize contraception for individuals or couples that can't afford it? Or for free (and voluntary) sterilization of those over the age of consent who know that they never want to have kids? Where have the provisions for free pre-natal care gone, that would have prevented miscarriages due to malnourishment, and made sure that as many as possible of the children that will be born as a result of this (as well as those who would have been born anyway) would be born healthy? And how about the provisions that would have ensured that any pregnant women who needed it could have a safe place to stay during pregnancy, and food to eat, clothes on her back, and treatment for any addictions she might suffer from? Where have they gone?

And what about an expansion to the WIC program, to ensure that those kids continue to be adequately nourished after they're born, where's that? And where are the (properly funded) mandates for improvements to the public schools, so that the next generation can be well-educated, and make the right choices? And, likewise, why do I see nothing in the text of this bill about community college programs, to expand them, and in particular their night school programs, and to subsidize tuition, so that all the struggling parents out there, single or in couples, can have a chance to learn new skills, to find better work, and thereby to make a better life for themselves and their children? And, since someone has to flip the burgers, where are the provisions to raise the minimum wage to a level that one can support oneself and a child on? And why are there no provisions in here about child support? Women ought to take responsibility for the lives they create, but so should men. So why does the burden of this law fall solely on one sex?

Finally, where is the funding for public health education programs, and to pay for medical treatment for those who can't afford it, which would both save more lives than even a complete eradication of abortion, and save the state money in the long run!?

I support a broad (albeit not total) ban on abortion, but I cannot and will not support this bill. It addresses the symptom (poorly) without addressing the causes, it placates the single-issue activists and voters without harnessing their support to accomplish broader ends, it has no chance of surviving a court challenge, and, in the end, it will do far more harm than good.

cimadness @ 2005-12-11T16:31:00

2005-12-11T21:32:33Z

Oh Great Cthulhu!

I have been an extremely sedulous devotee this year.

In June, I stopped dichotomousmind from defiling Lovecraft's grave (-20 points). In December, I prepared an ocean voyage to R'lyeh (200 points). In July, I bombed a cultist gathering (-100 points). Last week, I defiled the grave of that traitor, Lovecraft (90 points). In February, I wore an Elder Sign (-10 points). In September, I legally changed my name to Randolph Carter (-40 points).

In short, I have been very good (120 points) and deserve the honour of having my body used as a host for one of your servitors.

Your humble and obedient servant,
cimadness

Submit your own plea to Cthulhu!

cimadness @ 2005-12-11T14:09:00

2005-12-11T19:10:26Z

Masculine
You scored 63 masculinity and 33 femininity!

You scored high on masculinity and low on femininity. You have a traditionally masculine personality.

My test tracked 2 variables How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 54% on masculinity
You scored higher than 2% on femininity

Link: The Bem Sex Role Inventory Test written by weirdscience on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test