It struck me this week, that I am still waiting for closure on stories that I started 17+ years ago. Namely Starcraft and the Wheel of Time. Although there must be others. What other stories have drifted through limbo this long? I lost track of Wheel of Time shortly after Robert Jordan died, and decided to wait until the last book is out before finishing it. To my joy and consternation I have discovered it is finally finished! Joy because it is closure, consternation because my optimistically titled "to-read" shelf is already overly full and somewhat intimidating. This is largely because I still insist on spending my time in digital skinner boxes instead of reading.
Starcraft 2 is not quite a skinner box, but it IS still fun. In my time as a man-child, few games have pleased me more than the Starcraft series. I'll grant, it's a direct graft of every major SF series in recent memory presented in a pleasing and non-offensive fashion, but I still love it. I was initially disappointed that the new story was such a re-hash of the original plot, but in playing it through again so I could play the new expansion I changed my mind a bit. It's not high-brow literature, and the story itself is more than a little stereotypical, but I was strangely affected by it anyway. At the very least, I'm excited to see the end to a story left dangling over a decade ago, especially the bits involving Raynor and Kerrigan.
And as silly and potentially problematic as their relationship is, Raynor and Kerrigan were always the heart of the story, but their particular kind of tension can't be sustained indefinitely for a variety of reasons. "Will they or won't they now that she's a mutated alien hive queen?" gets kind of tired 20 years on. The arc in starcraft 2 is interesting, and the last couple lines between them strangely affecting. They basically absolve her of all responsibility for the first acts of genocide on account of her being mind controlled and all, but then, given the choice between a life with Raynor and control of the alien swarm that can give her revenge against Mengsk, she chooses the latter without hesitation. Which means the romance roulette wheel finally lands on "they won't" with finality, and thank the Xel'Naga for it. At last I have closure on these silly, stereotypical characters.
From there, it's more or less just simple revenge. Raynor graciously decides to help destroy Mengsk, because he wants to kill him too, and, well, she was going to anyway. I really kind of admire how they portray Kerrigan. She's not a hero so much, but she's strong, independent and doesn't take much shit from anybody. It's too bad that how they present her in both outfits and pose basically makes her look like a space prostitute. Seriously, when she mutates into an alien hybrid for the second time, they give her bone high heels and bone sculptures that leave her breasts largely exposed and shaped around her ass like she's wearing a bone g-string bikini. So, you know, the typical "strong woman" as imagined by video game designers.
Still, after she and Raynor share a tender moment exploding Mensk and his office from the inside out, she takes a breath and simply says: "Thank you, Jim. For everything."
And he replies, "My pleasure darlin'." And as she gently floats away on bone wings with no conceivable flight properties, "It always was."
Tropes, cliches and problematic relationship dynamics aside, I like that ending. It is a "True Thing" in human relationships. Don't we all know someone it's always been our pleasure to spend time with, no matter how weird it gets? Mostly though, I just like it because it's finally over. As far as I'm concerned, the main story reached it's conclusion and for what it was, it was relatively satisfying. Yes, the protoss and Kerrigan still need to defeat the insane god coming for them, but that just feels like loose ends at this point. The only likable and relatable Protoss protagonists died with Tassadar and Fenix,and the only bad guy with a constant, malevolent presence in the series just made a state change from water and carbon to vapor and ash. So, for the 3rd installment it's just going to be moving some pixels around until you get a movie showing an explosion at the end, in the usual Blizzard fashion, or so I assume. I'll play it, but for me, the story really ended here. With a post-human psychic renouncing everything she knows to embrace a greater destiny, and a lonesome cowboy finally willing to admit the woman he knew is gone, and was probably never who he thought she was to begin with.
It's about damn time.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Friday, April 12, 2013
Down the Drain
I need one of those waterproof shower note pads. I had several ideas for a story and a couple of punchy blog posts in the shower today that I forgot almost immediately upon getting out. I distinctly remember thinking, "Hmm, that would be a great, short blog post for today." And now it's gone. All gone. All I am left with is this lamentation for ideas still caged and forgotten. Poor things.
Tuesday, April 02, 2013
Windmills
Blog under real name or pseudonym? New career or old career? Vanilla or Chocolate? Evening or morning? Forward or Backward? Past, present or future? Many chances or one? Doubt or Belief? Striding into the future regardless of mistakes or sliding into irrelevance under their weight? Words or white space? Vocal or mute? Humble or Proud? Order or chaos? What are these circles that I find in the windmills of my mind?
Please stop the world for a tic, I need gather my wits.
Actually, if we could just rewind it real quick so I can have a much-needed chat with my 18-year-old self, that would be GREAT. Will only take a moment, I swear.
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
When you're ready
"Our marriages have never required the church's imprimatur. The best use of our passion and conviction is to build relationships that are strong and honest and beautiful. Along the way we can always hold wedding feasts that "the church" [or society] can come to when it stops pouting outside."- a user in my secret gay adventist facebook group
The brackets are mine of course. I love this framing of the issue. Gay marriage only gives you more access to community, connection and tradition, not less.
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Career Modeling
I know there's nothing more tedious than a wannabe writer writing about writing instead of actually writing something interesting, but hey, it's my blog, and writing is what I've been thinking about today. Specifically, how difficult it is or would be to make a career out of it, especially the way things are going in the industry. Everyone* seems to think the old method is dying. Or, at the very least, people seem to be worried that the old methods are dying. To be sure, every industry story I've read about working in the traditional print magazine or newspaper industry seems unpromising. Most publications seemed trapped in a downward spiral of layoffs, increasing workload to cover for the layoffs and less pay. Freelancers are more and more expected to write for free, with "exposure" as the only payment. And online writing, as far as I can tell, seems contingent solely on generating clicks, which is why it has quickly and sadly devolved into endless gossip, pointless trivia and the dreaded listcicle articles, because apparently what people love is x number of adjective facts about y. I don't see a lot of quality writing online, and I don't see a lot of interest in it. Although, I could just be looking in the wrong places and/or underestimating people. Well, I'm almost certain I'm underestimating people. Which is how I'll feel right up until I see headlines promising 9 surprising and useless facts about popcorn anyway.
As far as writing fiction goes, it seems possible to make a living selling stories, either as books or screenplays, but less and less chance to be a megastar, as the book industry seems to be undergoing the same contraction that magazines and newspapers are. But here, as in music, the model of "make a book or album and charge for the pleasure of trying it" seems to be dying as well. Not only is piracy an ongoing concern for writers, people seem less and less inclined to buy a story or album when they can't try it out first. Or they're into the kickstarter model where people fund your project if they like you, the sample product or the ideas. This is not terrible, of course, I don't bemoan it. It's great for the consumer both in cost and as incentive for creators to make better products. But it seems to me that, for the time being at least, the model seems to be shifting more to a structure where creators put their work out in samples or for free and let people buy just the pieces of it they like, or the whole work for cheap. Or even putting the whole album or book out there for free, and letting people pay you if they think it's any good. I actually think this new model works out better in a lot of ways, in that what gets made is influenced more by the consumers and less by wealthy industry types trying to tell you what you like or attempting to mind-read your preferences from a distance. What I am not sure about, is where this leaves writing/creating in terms of a career. Is it possible to write/create full-time now, or is it something only those truly passionate about it will do on nights and weekends, as they can when they can get away from the day job that pays the bills? I don't know, but I feel like it's something I should have a handle on before I make any hasty decisions.
My guess right now is that it's better to just generate some good work for free, keep an active blog, and hope that I get lucky or produce writing good enough (down the road, if not right away), that people would want to put some money in the tip jar. Or at least build a big enough audience to pick up the notice of a bigger publisher. Most of the nuts and bolts commentary I read by artists I respect basically suggest this method. Knuckle down, do the work, put it where people can see it, connect with other people who write about the dame thing, write about it on your public platform and hope other people resonate with it enough to pay you money for it. Oh, and don't quit your day job until your other work starts making enough money to replace it. So I think that's what I'm going to go for, at this point anyway. Although it seems vital that I do so under a better pseudonym or simply my real name. Using my real name is potentially problematic because my existing career has nothing to do with creative writing, and I'd rather not accidentally destroy it by telegraphing the possibility that I might be more interested in doing the work I'm not paid to do. But still, it might be necessary. I'm obviously terrible at pseudonyms. In any case, real life friends should look out for twitter and blog accounts cropping up soon under my real life name. I'm not sure exactly what, if anything, I'm going to do with them yet, but it would be nice to have them up as placeholders.
But, first things first: knuckle down and do the work. Assuming I can get past my last mental block and allow myself the pleasure of writing and the possibility of failure (both of the stupid neuroses I've struggled with most of my life), I intend to do just that and star putting more review pieces and fiction out. And if my piano playing ends up getting better, maybe I'll throw some of that up too. I hope people like my work. If not, I intend to get better. Will it ever become a career? I guess I won't know until I try. And if I have things to say, which I do, then I might as well say them. In the meantime, at the very least, it seems like the hobby I want to cultivate and that seems good enough. Hell, at least some of what I write will have to be better than "10 Alarming Reasons to Buy a Horse."
*Okay, the limited selection of authors I've read the the internet.
As far as writing fiction goes, it seems possible to make a living selling stories, either as books or screenplays, but less and less chance to be a megastar, as the book industry seems to be undergoing the same contraction that magazines and newspapers are. But here, as in music, the model of "make a book or album and charge for the pleasure of trying it" seems to be dying as well. Not only is piracy an ongoing concern for writers, people seem less and less inclined to buy a story or album when they can't try it out first. Or they're into the kickstarter model where people fund your project if they like you, the sample product or the ideas. This is not terrible, of course, I don't bemoan it. It's great for the consumer both in cost and as incentive for creators to make better products. But it seems to me that, for the time being at least, the model seems to be shifting more to a structure where creators put their work out in samples or for free and let people buy just the pieces of it they like, or the whole work for cheap. Or even putting the whole album or book out there for free, and letting people pay you if they think it's any good. I actually think this new model works out better in a lot of ways, in that what gets made is influenced more by the consumers and less by wealthy industry types trying to tell you what you like or attempting to mind-read your preferences from a distance. What I am not sure about, is where this leaves writing/creating in terms of a career. Is it possible to write/create full-time now, or is it something only those truly passionate about it will do on nights and weekends, as they can when they can get away from the day job that pays the bills? I don't know, but I feel like it's something I should have a handle on before I make any hasty decisions.
My guess right now is that it's better to just generate some good work for free, keep an active blog, and hope that I get lucky or produce writing good enough (down the road, if not right away), that people would want to put some money in the tip jar. Or at least build a big enough audience to pick up the notice of a bigger publisher. Most of the nuts and bolts commentary I read by artists I respect basically suggest this method. Knuckle down, do the work, put it where people can see it, connect with other people who write about the dame thing, write about it on your public platform and hope other people resonate with it enough to pay you money for it. Oh, and don't quit your day job until your other work starts making enough money to replace it. So I think that's what I'm going to go for, at this point anyway. Although it seems vital that I do so under a better pseudonym or simply my real name. Using my real name is potentially problematic because my existing career has nothing to do with creative writing, and I'd rather not accidentally destroy it by telegraphing the possibility that I might be more interested in doing the work I'm not paid to do. But still, it might be necessary. I'm obviously terrible at pseudonyms. In any case, real life friends should look out for twitter and blog accounts cropping up soon under my real life name. I'm not sure exactly what, if anything, I'm going to do with them yet, but it would be nice to have them up as placeholders.
But, first things first: knuckle down and do the work. Assuming I can get past my last mental block and allow myself the pleasure of writing and the possibility of failure (both of the stupid neuroses I've struggled with most of my life), I intend to do just that and star putting more review pieces and fiction out. And if my piano playing ends up getting better, maybe I'll throw some of that up too. I hope people like my work. If not, I intend to get better. Will it ever become a career? I guess I won't know until I try. And if I have things to say, which I do, then I might as well say them. In the meantime, at the very least, it seems like the hobby I want to cultivate and that seems good enough. Hell, at least some of what I write will have to be better than "10 Alarming Reasons to Buy a Horse."
*Okay, the limited selection of authors I've read the the internet.
Wednesday, March 13, 2013
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Aaaah
You know, it feels good to have that last post out of my system. New programming soon. Less ranting. I want to keep writing until I get better at it. I want to write things people will actually want to read. Still a ways to go, but there's less and less in my way.
Monday, March 04, 2013
Leaving Adventism, Part 2
I can't specifically remember the first moment I thought, "Hey, my religion might be bullshit," but I remember one of the first times. I sat in the Gem State Academy chapel, my cheeks burning. It was the culmination of one of the many prayer weeks, and the preacher had just made the altar call. I was ashamed and angry, and my face felt flushed. I was being asked to come to the front as a symbol of my willingness to serve Jesus, and I was terribly conflicted. On the one hand, I wanted to be a good person, which I and everyone I knew equated with following Jesus. And on the other, someone from my religion, which prides itself on intellectual argumentation and religious scholarship, was using heavy-handed emotional arguments and peer pressure to get me to make a meaningless gesture as a token of tribal identification. It seemed mindless and manipulative. And while the preacher framed my natural resistance to manipulation as "wrestling with the Holy Spirit," the angry thought running through my head was, "Hey, maybe this is all bullshit."
It took me a long time to more or less settle on that conclusion, but the evidence kept mounting. And instead of dealing with it, I just noticed the cognitive dissonance that kept cropping up, and I just kind of passively faded from the Adventist scene. After I left college I would only attend church sporadically, although I couldn't really tell you why. I just did not like it and did not belong there. And it wasn't just the fact that I was a closeted and therefore unhappy homosexual, although that was an important part of it. It was also that the more I was outside of the church, the more I realized the church's explanations for just about any damn thing did not square with my experience of the world, and just choosing to ignore my experience when it conflicted with Adventist teachings was not an option for me. Not forever anyway.
I did two of the hardest things I've ever done on Oct 31, 2011. I told my parents I was gay. And then they asked a question I should have seen coming: "well, what does this mean for your Adventism?" Because if I could throw out what the bible says in "plain english" about being gay, then what else in the bible was I willing to get rid of? As it turns out, quite a bit of it. I didn't specifically say at the time, I just told them there were bits I liked and would keep, and the rest I had to take a step back from. In other words, I didn't consider myself an Adventist anymore. I'm honestly not sure which of those two revelations shocked and hurt my parents more.
Honestly, I probably should have told them both of those things 15 years earlier. But I dragged my feet for a variety of good and bad reasons. Partly because most of my family and friends are Adventist and I wasn't ready to face the push-back or the pity or the patronizing attitudes like, "If you just understood the bible and christianity better, you would stay," or "If you weren't so easily tempted by Satan you would stay." Because I watched a camp director I was friends with describe his son's decision to be truthful about his sexual orientation and embrace it without shame as choosing "to serve Satan." Because I knew, having watched it happen to other people before, that my friends and family would assume that the boy they all thought was so bright and observant, who had been raised his entire life in Adventist churches and schools, had somehow managed to miss the truth and beauty of the Adventist religion and lifestyle. That I could not possibly have processed Adventist philosophy and found it wanting, I must have misunderstood, been tempted, been an unobservant idiot.
The idea angers me, honestly. Perfect I am not, but I know what I know, I know what I learned, I know what I saw, and and I know how much Adventism doesn't fit with my experience, knowledge or philosophy. And while my person life philosophy is still a work in process, and I expect to be wrong, and make more mistakes and reserve to change my mind about a few things in the future regarding life the universe and everything, I can tell you this: I have some serious fundamental problems with Adventism. And I can tell you why.
To begin, I don't remotely agree with the basic world view or eschatology. In Adventist thought the world is fallen, and must become more and more fallen as time goes on. Eventually, God will withdraw his presence, the world will get really bad, Christians, especially Adventists, will be persecuted, and eventually Jesus will return to smite Satan and any human who does not worship God. In Adventist teaching, the world is always only a couple of years away from the return of Jesus, because the world's just THAT evil. People outside the church might be well-meaning, but are fallen. When it comes down to it, they have been tricked by Satan in some big or small way. It is the job of every Adventist to save them, to bring them the truth of the bible and this world view and baptize them into the church. It is a calling. If they do not convert these people, they will DIE in a lake of fire at the end of time.
To be blunt, this simply does not square with my experience or any rational observation of the world. It took me a long time to get out of the adventist mindset to notice, but as it turns out I think a lot of things have gotten better for a lot of people. More people are fed, more minorities have the civil liberties they deserve, more sickness can be cured. I don't quite buy the liberal idea that the universe MUST bend toward progress, equality and justice, it seems pretty obvious to me that civilization is a thin veneer that will tear if people get scared enough. But, I don't see a world just endlessly spiraling towards misery and destruction. Yes, there's a long way to go, yes they're a lot of idiots who could push it that way, but that is only part of the story. There's also progress and hope and change for the better all over the damn planet, much of it brought about by people who aren't Christian. To see a world spiraling towards sin and service to Satan you have to ignore large and significant chunks of it that aren't doing that by any rational measure. I don't see a spiral to ruin in the world. I'm not sure why Adventists see it. I DO see an increasing distrust of religious authoritarianism, but that only feels like the end of the world and all things good to authoritarians.
Further, in Adventism, the basic nature of man is fallen. You, as a human being are born to sin. In Adventist teaching human beings are incapable of being good on their own. The ability to be good stems directly from submission to God. They speak of the outside world as a dark and fallen place where people can't help but succumb to their base urges all the damn time, without God giving them the strength to resist the temptation to steal, cheat and lie. They say this, despite making forays into the outside world all the damn time, and encountering decent people who are not stealing, cheating or lying without submitting to God first. I don't know how Adventists reconcile this discrepancy, but I cannot. In my experience, some of the most respectful, kind and decent people I know are atheists who grew up in non-religious households. Yeah, I've known some atheists who are tremendous assholes, and some Christians who are real nice people, and vice versa. But the assertion that people can't choose to be good without God is just false on it face. Millions and billions of people do it every day. And even if you want to argue that that's still God choosing to help them anyway, you must concede it's God choosing to help them even though they don't worship or follow him.
In my experience, people choose to be kind, truthful and decent for a variety of other compelling reasons. They like how it makes them feel. They like how people trust and like them. They have their own non-religious or non-christan value systems about how it's wrong to kill, steal, lie and cheat and think it's important to honor that. They see that when they act decently, the end result for everyone involved, including themselves, is better. They do all this without fear of divine punishment. To assert that they can't possibly be doing this without submitting to God first is ludicrous, because we have that data: they do it anyway. At least some of the time.
I'm not asserting the reverse is true either, that people are born to be good. I'm just noting the obvious, which is we are not perfect, but we still manage to be decent to each other most of the time. And it's profoundly disturbing to me that Adventists, and christians more broadly, frame a lack of perfection as perpetual failure and an inclination for evil. More specifically, that they raise children and brainwash adults into believing that they should feel bad just for existing, as innately imperfect and evil things. Not only is this teaching wrong because it does terrible things to a human's self-esteem, it's wrong because it's a obvious and terrible lie.
What has kept you from murdering your friends today? Your enemies? Lying, cheating, stealing, raping, beating? Have you fought the urge to kill at every moment of your life, constrained only by a christian conscience? Do you enjoy watching the suffering of others? Do enjoy causing the suffering, death and humiliation of others? Is your negative behavior your proudest moment? I'm not asking if you've never been tempted to do an immoral thing, or have never done something you regret, that's happened for everyone. I've had moments I'm not proud of where I was angry, lashed out, did something selfish I thought I could get away with, told a lie when I should have told the truth, etc. Furthermore, I can imagine circumstances that could tempt me to do worse things than I have out of desperation or anger. But I don't enjoy the suffering of others. I'm not inclined to kick puppies. I'm not thinking about how to cheat people when I'm talking to them. When I see other people hurt it makes me hurt. And it doesn't take a great deal of self-control not to operate as a monstrously evil bastard in my day to day life. And you know what, I don't think it takes that much effort for anyone else either. Yeah bad stuff happens. Yes there is systematic injustice to confront and fix. Yes someone can make a series of choices that lead to progressively bad choices. Yes, people make evil decisions for stupid reasons. But I don't think, in their deepest self that that "bad" is who they naturally are. Because they are not, by nature, evil. And I think it's wrong and immoral to convince them they ARE evil and fallen, just to guilt them into joining your religion, as if that was the only way they could ever hope to be consistently good.
Which is the next thing I disagree with Adventism on: It's wrong, in my opinion, to attempt to convert people to ideas you have no proof for. I think it's absolutely fair to have some belief system, about what it all means, about why we're alive, where we go when we die, what the basic nature of man is. But the key feature of those beliefs, the reason they are beliefs and not facts, is that there is no actual proof for any of those ideas. They may soothe existential worries, and that's great, but I think it's absolutely wrong to attempt to coerce people into believing something you can't prove, no matter how good it makes someone feel. I absolutely think it's wrong to prey upon people's fear of death in weak moments, in order convert them to your unprovable beliefs for any reason.
There are two essential claims made for why someone should be an Adventist. One, you get to live forever (and more importantly aren't killed and then re-killed in a lake of fire). Two, your life on earth will be better, because these beliefs lead to better thoughts and therefore better behavior and better results in the here and now. I heard over and over in my youth that the Adventist lifestyle was self-evidently better, and that Adventists living that lifestyle would be such happy and well-adjusted and fulfilled individuals that people would naturally be curious about and eventually willing to join the religion to get the same benefits. But very few people actually do that so they also insist church members must go out and save their friends, using emotional appeals and manipulation (Jesus died for you, you'll die forever if you don't join, don't you want to feel like a good person not like the terrible asshole you are now?). How little faith do you have to have in your philosophy or religion when you can't actually let it speak for itself, after proudly proclaiming it speaks for itself? Either your religion leads to such a good life that it speaks for itself, or you have to go out and convert people to get them to join. Doing the one kind of puts the lie to the other.
Of course, the basis of these beliefs that they are so keen to impart to you is the bible, and the belief that the bible contains infallible truth, is the true word of God and can be read in plain english. Personally, I don't see any reason to believe the bible is more true than the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita or the writings of Nostrodamus. But even if I were to concede, for the sake of argument, that the bible is true, I have a tremendous problem with the inconsistent ways Adventists interpret it. As I mentioned in part 1, they have no formal method for determining which parts of the bible were cultural, and specific to the time it was written, and which are timeless truths. In practice, it seems to me, Adventists interpret the bible as is culturally convenient, unchallenging and in accordance with their pre-existing biases. They rely on "intuitions from the holy spirit" in order to distinguish truth from lie, with no training or discussion whatsoever on how to distinguish "the urgings of the holy spirit" from "accumulated emotional biases." They consistently refuse to understand the main principles of the text, when they conflict with arguably interpreted rules that are less challenging than the principle. The bible is the Truth . . . except when it's not . . . depending on your feelings. I don't find these standards of interpretation or logic particularly impressive or likely to yield much truth.
As far as Ellen G. White goes, I think I would have liked her as a human being, but I'm not sure I believe she was a prophet from god. She was hit in the head with a rock when she was young, which dented her brain and put her into a coma for a while. A few years later, she started seeing visions. I think the simpler explanation is she had some minor brain damage that resulted in periodic hallucinations. She seemed nice though, especially as she aged and relaxed on the condemnation and embraced compassion a bit more.
Which leads me to the most major problem I have with Adventism: the unhealthy and unnecessary dominance of authoritarianism over grace. I honestly believe there is a beautiful core to the message of christianity that's been absolutely corrupted by a very human need for certainty and control, and Adventism is no exception. I think the ideas that God is the all-powerful and all-knowning embodiment of love and also bound by rules and vengeance and must kill you for being imperfect are absolutely irreconcilable. Adventists usually do some handwaving about "the divine mystery" when this kind of thing comes up, but that usually just means "we can't explain it, so try not to think about it." The ideas don't match. They can't be reconciled. God can't be both of those things. The basic story of christianity can't be "You are so bad that only the threat of hellfire can keep you in line." and also be, "you're so kind and so moved by the suffering and death of Jesus that you want to follow him." God can't be a kind and wise person who only loves you if you serve him as a slave because that correlates with no definition of kindness or wisdom I've ever encountered. And the only people it serves to ignore the voice saying "this makes no sense" are the people at the top of the very human religious organization here on earth, or at least the people who suspect they may believe a crazy thing and don't like to be reminded of the obvious problems with their story.
Which is what rankles me, the prioritization of the organization and rules of the organization over the message. They don't challenge the cultural biases of their congregations because they want those congregations to stay and give money, and the only challenge they do give to their members is to submit to God and the church. The stuff about grace, love, humility and whatnot is given lip service, but when it conflicts with the needs of the organization, the organization wins. They single out people who are different in a way that conflicts with the general congregation's cultural biases, on the basis of broken and cherry-picked rules but irregardless of important christian principles, and make them feel unwanted and unloved. So my divorced and gay friends end up leaving the church because they can't feel the church's love in the church's disdain for who they are or choices they had to make to have a better life. Meanwhile, the remaining congregation, who will look you in the eye and tell you all sins are equal and that all men are pre-disposed to sin, therefore no one can look down on another for their sin, are NOT run out of the church even though they are fat, or lazy, or prideful or shameful gossips or cheaters or otherwise breaking the rules. It's comfortable hypocrisy in the name of goodness and humility and I can't stand it.
And this mindless enforcement of the rules, absent reason and kindness leads to all sorts of terrible traditions and rules, the worst of which, to my mind, is how they forbid dancing. Dancing is not a part of Adventist culture, because there is a fear that it will incite lust in the participants which might tempt them to break another rule uninformed by principle that insists people not have sex before marriage lest God kill you dead. Our old joke used to be, "Why do adventists forbid oral sex? Because it might lead to dancing." Worst of all, they claim this will make you a happier person, because you remove yourself from temptation. They forbid dancing, one of the basic expressions of human happiness and intimacy, and call it joy and freedom. That is insane and there is no biblical principle they can point to that supports it. It's just an arcane rule, based on another arcane rule, that nobody can really explain but that people follow anyway for fear of rocking the boat or burning in hell. If your religious philosophy claims love as it's central tenant, but freaks out when two people dance close together in a loving way, or two men show each other love and physical affection, it might be prudent to ask why that disconnect exists. I did, and I couldn't find a good reason, other than mindless authority, tradition and culture. The life of Jesus and the core principles of the bible have very little to do with it.
The core of christianity (and Adventism) is quite nice in some ways, of course. Jesus comes along and says, "Hey, you know what might change the world? Being kind in response to violence. Tending to the sick, feeding and clothing the poor, abandoning the crass accumulation of wealth and embracing personal and spiritual growth, loving yourself and loving your neighbor, not judging people. You know, not being a dick and maybe being helpful to someone other than yourself." That part I have no problem with. The part I have a problem with is where the church comes in after and says, "You see that nice guy? He died because you're an evil jerk. You're bad and you should feel bad. Now his dad's real pissed off for killing his kid and because of how bad you are, and he's basically going to have to kill you twice in order to make his point proper, and the only way to get right with him is to abandon your own thoughts and free will to his will, which we have conveniently written down and interpreted for you. Now, I know you're asking, how can I know you really speak for him? Well, it's true because it's true. And hey, if you submit now, not only will you not be murder-killed, but you get to live forever and grow wings!" Well, I'm paraphrasing here.
I think Jesus, like Buddha, had some good ideas that can still change the world if actually followed. I think the authoritarian framework that came after, including Adventism's onerous rule system, is essentially emotional blackmail that is less concerned with changing the world, than with false certainty and control. I do not believe a message of love and grace is at all reconcilable with the idea that God will someday return and smite Adventism's enemies because that act is monstrous, not loving or gracious. Why would you as a practicer of love and grace and a follower of Jesus want harm to your enemies, and why would the ultimate expression of love and intelligence in the universe smite them? Is God so limited that he can't sit you down and present a compelling argument? Rules, punishment and hierarchy seem so obviously human, not divine, in origin that I can't believe they were ever successfully grafted onto ideas of love, humility, tolerance and grace. I don't see anything humble or gracious in the authoritarian assertion that one segment of humanity has found all of the Truth and the rest of us must submit or burn forever. I see no love or compassion in telling people they are shit and should feel bad, giving them only submission to human authority in the name of God as a reason to feel good. In short, Adventists and other authoritarians seem more like people who like the idea of following Jesus more than they actually like following Jesus.
Finally, even if I hadn't left because of all of the above, I would be forced to leave as an unrepentant and not celibate gay man. The church thinks that sex outside of marriage is a sin, therefore, since I am not allowed to marry another man in the eyes of the church, I must be celibate forever, or God must kill me. It also thinks that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" that could tempt any man, that there is no such thing as a sexual orientation, just perversion, and that otherwise straight children can be turned to the gay side simply by seeing happy homosexual couples out in public. It thinks that three bible verses about slavery and rape and not by any possible reading about committed homosexual life partners are applicable to committed homosexual relationships. This is not only ignorant and wrong, it's so wrong it makes me question what other ideas they hold they aren't similarly detached from reality. It's tragic because they end up using all this ignorance as a reason to run openly gay people out of their churches. Because given the choice between loving the sinner and hating the "sin", they choose the hating over the loving more often than not. People leave, not because they can't let go of their sin, but because they can't see the church's love for them through the church's hate for a piece of their nature that they can't change. It's all so unnecessary. I've never felt closer to God than the day I first had sex with a man. It was the first time I felt like a complete person, like I finally fit in the world and understood who I really was. And my former church finds that idea appalling, that I could and would gain any solace from being loving and affectionate with another man. Apparently Jesus was about love, but only so much. And loving, accepting and socializing with the outcast, so long as it was culturally comfortable.
Adventists keep using that word, "love." I think it means something different than they think it means. And ultimately, that's why I had to go.
It took me a long time to more or less settle on that conclusion, but the evidence kept mounting. And instead of dealing with it, I just noticed the cognitive dissonance that kept cropping up, and I just kind of passively faded from the Adventist scene. After I left college I would only attend church sporadically, although I couldn't really tell you why. I just did not like it and did not belong there. And it wasn't just the fact that I was a closeted and therefore unhappy homosexual, although that was an important part of it. It was also that the more I was outside of the church, the more I realized the church's explanations for just about any damn thing did not square with my experience of the world, and just choosing to ignore my experience when it conflicted with Adventist teachings was not an option for me. Not forever anyway.
I did two of the hardest things I've ever done on Oct 31, 2011. I told my parents I was gay. And then they asked a question I should have seen coming: "well, what does this mean for your Adventism?" Because if I could throw out what the bible says in "plain english" about being gay, then what else in the bible was I willing to get rid of? As it turns out, quite a bit of it. I didn't specifically say at the time, I just told them there were bits I liked and would keep, and the rest I had to take a step back from. In other words, I didn't consider myself an Adventist anymore. I'm honestly not sure which of those two revelations shocked and hurt my parents more.
Honestly, I probably should have told them both of those things 15 years earlier. But I dragged my feet for a variety of good and bad reasons. Partly because most of my family and friends are Adventist and I wasn't ready to face the push-back or the pity or the patronizing attitudes like, "If you just understood the bible and christianity better, you would stay," or "If you weren't so easily tempted by Satan you would stay." Because I watched a camp director I was friends with describe his son's decision to be truthful about his sexual orientation and embrace it without shame as choosing "to serve Satan." Because I knew, having watched it happen to other people before, that my friends and family would assume that the boy they all thought was so bright and observant, who had been raised his entire life in Adventist churches and schools, had somehow managed to miss the truth and beauty of the Adventist religion and lifestyle. That I could not possibly have processed Adventist philosophy and found it wanting, I must have misunderstood, been tempted, been an unobservant idiot.
The idea angers me, honestly. Perfect I am not, but I know what I know, I know what I learned, I know what I saw, and and I know how much Adventism doesn't fit with my experience, knowledge or philosophy. And while my person life philosophy is still a work in process, and I expect to be wrong, and make more mistakes and reserve to change my mind about a few things in the future regarding life the universe and everything, I can tell you this: I have some serious fundamental problems with Adventism. And I can tell you why.
To begin, I don't remotely agree with the basic world view or eschatology. In Adventist thought the world is fallen, and must become more and more fallen as time goes on. Eventually, God will withdraw his presence, the world will get really bad, Christians, especially Adventists, will be persecuted, and eventually Jesus will return to smite Satan and any human who does not worship God. In Adventist teaching, the world is always only a couple of years away from the return of Jesus, because the world's just THAT evil. People outside the church might be well-meaning, but are fallen. When it comes down to it, they have been tricked by Satan in some big or small way. It is the job of every Adventist to save them, to bring them the truth of the bible and this world view and baptize them into the church. It is a calling. If they do not convert these people, they will DIE in a lake of fire at the end of time.
To be blunt, this simply does not square with my experience or any rational observation of the world. It took me a long time to get out of the adventist mindset to notice, but as it turns out I think a lot of things have gotten better for a lot of people. More people are fed, more minorities have the civil liberties they deserve, more sickness can be cured. I don't quite buy the liberal idea that the universe MUST bend toward progress, equality and justice, it seems pretty obvious to me that civilization is a thin veneer that will tear if people get scared enough. But, I don't see a world just endlessly spiraling towards misery and destruction. Yes, there's a long way to go, yes they're a lot of idiots who could push it that way, but that is only part of the story. There's also progress and hope and change for the better all over the damn planet, much of it brought about by people who aren't Christian. To see a world spiraling towards sin and service to Satan you have to ignore large and significant chunks of it that aren't doing that by any rational measure. I don't see a spiral to ruin in the world. I'm not sure why Adventists see it. I DO see an increasing distrust of religious authoritarianism, but that only feels like the end of the world and all things good to authoritarians.
Further, in Adventism, the basic nature of man is fallen. You, as a human being are born to sin. In Adventist teaching human beings are incapable of being good on their own. The ability to be good stems directly from submission to God. They speak of the outside world as a dark and fallen place where people can't help but succumb to their base urges all the damn time, without God giving them the strength to resist the temptation to steal, cheat and lie. They say this, despite making forays into the outside world all the damn time, and encountering decent people who are not stealing, cheating or lying without submitting to God first. I don't know how Adventists reconcile this discrepancy, but I cannot. In my experience, some of the most respectful, kind and decent people I know are atheists who grew up in non-religious households. Yeah, I've known some atheists who are tremendous assholes, and some Christians who are real nice people, and vice versa. But the assertion that people can't choose to be good without God is just false on it face. Millions and billions of people do it every day. And even if you want to argue that that's still God choosing to help them anyway, you must concede it's God choosing to help them even though they don't worship or follow him.
In my experience, people choose to be kind, truthful and decent for a variety of other compelling reasons. They like how it makes them feel. They like how people trust and like them. They have their own non-religious or non-christan value systems about how it's wrong to kill, steal, lie and cheat and think it's important to honor that. They see that when they act decently, the end result for everyone involved, including themselves, is better. They do all this without fear of divine punishment. To assert that they can't possibly be doing this without submitting to God first is ludicrous, because we have that data: they do it anyway. At least some of the time.
I'm not asserting the reverse is true either, that people are born to be good. I'm just noting the obvious, which is we are not perfect, but we still manage to be decent to each other most of the time. And it's profoundly disturbing to me that Adventists, and christians more broadly, frame a lack of perfection as perpetual failure and an inclination for evil. More specifically, that they raise children and brainwash adults into believing that they should feel bad just for existing, as innately imperfect and evil things. Not only is this teaching wrong because it does terrible things to a human's self-esteem, it's wrong because it's a obvious and terrible lie.
What has kept you from murdering your friends today? Your enemies? Lying, cheating, stealing, raping, beating? Have you fought the urge to kill at every moment of your life, constrained only by a christian conscience? Do you enjoy watching the suffering of others? Do enjoy causing the suffering, death and humiliation of others? Is your negative behavior your proudest moment? I'm not asking if you've never been tempted to do an immoral thing, or have never done something you regret, that's happened for everyone. I've had moments I'm not proud of where I was angry, lashed out, did something selfish I thought I could get away with, told a lie when I should have told the truth, etc. Furthermore, I can imagine circumstances that could tempt me to do worse things than I have out of desperation or anger. But I don't enjoy the suffering of others. I'm not inclined to kick puppies. I'm not thinking about how to cheat people when I'm talking to them. When I see other people hurt it makes me hurt. And it doesn't take a great deal of self-control not to operate as a monstrously evil bastard in my day to day life. And you know what, I don't think it takes that much effort for anyone else either. Yeah bad stuff happens. Yes there is systematic injustice to confront and fix. Yes someone can make a series of choices that lead to progressively bad choices. Yes, people make evil decisions for stupid reasons. But I don't think, in their deepest self that that "bad" is who they naturally are. Because they are not, by nature, evil. And I think it's wrong and immoral to convince them they ARE evil and fallen, just to guilt them into joining your religion, as if that was the only way they could ever hope to be consistently good.
Which is the next thing I disagree with Adventism on: It's wrong, in my opinion, to attempt to convert people to ideas you have no proof for. I think it's absolutely fair to have some belief system, about what it all means, about why we're alive, where we go when we die, what the basic nature of man is. But the key feature of those beliefs, the reason they are beliefs and not facts, is that there is no actual proof for any of those ideas. They may soothe existential worries, and that's great, but I think it's absolutely wrong to attempt to coerce people into believing something you can't prove, no matter how good it makes someone feel. I absolutely think it's wrong to prey upon people's fear of death in weak moments, in order convert them to your unprovable beliefs for any reason.
There are two essential claims made for why someone should be an Adventist. One, you get to live forever (and more importantly aren't killed and then re-killed in a lake of fire). Two, your life on earth will be better, because these beliefs lead to better thoughts and therefore better behavior and better results in the here and now. I heard over and over in my youth that the Adventist lifestyle was self-evidently better, and that Adventists living that lifestyle would be such happy and well-adjusted and fulfilled individuals that people would naturally be curious about and eventually willing to join the religion to get the same benefits. But very few people actually do that so they also insist church members must go out and save their friends, using emotional appeals and manipulation (Jesus died for you, you'll die forever if you don't join, don't you want to feel like a good person not like the terrible asshole you are now?). How little faith do you have to have in your philosophy or religion when you can't actually let it speak for itself, after proudly proclaiming it speaks for itself? Either your religion leads to such a good life that it speaks for itself, or you have to go out and convert people to get them to join. Doing the one kind of puts the lie to the other.
Of course, the basis of these beliefs that they are so keen to impart to you is the bible, and the belief that the bible contains infallible truth, is the true word of God and can be read in plain english. Personally, I don't see any reason to believe the bible is more true than the Quran, or the Bhagavad Gita or the writings of Nostrodamus. But even if I were to concede, for the sake of argument, that the bible is true, I have a tremendous problem with the inconsistent ways Adventists interpret it. As I mentioned in part 1, they have no formal method for determining which parts of the bible were cultural, and specific to the time it was written, and which are timeless truths. In practice, it seems to me, Adventists interpret the bible as is culturally convenient, unchallenging and in accordance with their pre-existing biases. They rely on "intuitions from the holy spirit" in order to distinguish truth from lie, with no training or discussion whatsoever on how to distinguish "the urgings of the holy spirit" from "accumulated emotional biases." They consistently refuse to understand the main principles of the text, when they conflict with arguably interpreted rules that are less challenging than the principle. The bible is the Truth . . . except when it's not . . . depending on your feelings. I don't find these standards of interpretation or logic particularly impressive or likely to yield much truth.
As far as Ellen G. White goes, I think I would have liked her as a human being, but I'm not sure I believe she was a prophet from god. She was hit in the head with a rock when she was young, which dented her brain and put her into a coma for a while. A few years later, she started seeing visions. I think the simpler explanation is she had some minor brain damage that resulted in periodic hallucinations. She seemed nice though, especially as she aged and relaxed on the condemnation and embraced compassion a bit more.
Which leads me to the most major problem I have with Adventism: the unhealthy and unnecessary dominance of authoritarianism over grace. I honestly believe there is a beautiful core to the message of christianity that's been absolutely corrupted by a very human need for certainty and control, and Adventism is no exception. I think the ideas that God is the all-powerful and all-knowning embodiment of love and also bound by rules and vengeance and must kill you for being imperfect are absolutely irreconcilable. Adventists usually do some handwaving about "the divine mystery" when this kind of thing comes up, but that usually just means "we can't explain it, so try not to think about it." The ideas don't match. They can't be reconciled. God can't be both of those things. The basic story of christianity can't be "You are so bad that only the threat of hellfire can keep you in line." and also be, "you're so kind and so moved by the suffering and death of Jesus that you want to follow him." God can't be a kind and wise person who only loves you if you serve him as a slave because that correlates with no definition of kindness or wisdom I've ever encountered. And the only people it serves to ignore the voice saying "this makes no sense" are the people at the top of the very human religious organization here on earth, or at least the people who suspect they may believe a crazy thing and don't like to be reminded of the obvious problems with their story.
Which is what rankles me, the prioritization of the organization and rules of the organization over the message. They don't challenge the cultural biases of their congregations because they want those congregations to stay and give money, and the only challenge they do give to their members is to submit to God and the church. The stuff about grace, love, humility and whatnot is given lip service, but when it conflicts with the needs of the organization, the organization wins. They single out people who are different in a way that conflicts with the general congregation's cultural biases, on the basis of broken and cherry-picked rules but irregardless of important christian principles, and make them feel unwanted and unloved. So my divorced and gay friends end up leaving the church because they can't feel the church's love in the church's disdain for who they are or choices they had to make to have a better life. Meanwhile, the remaining congregation, who will look you in the eye and tell you all sins are equal and that all men are pre-disposed to sin, therefore no one can look down on another for their sin, are NOT run out of the church even though they are fat, or lazy, or prideful or shameful gossips or cheaters or otherwise breaking the rules. It's comfortable hypocrisy in the name of goodness and humility and I can't stand it.
And this mindless enforcement of the rules, absent reason and kindness leads to all sorts of terrible traditions and rules, the worst of which, to my mind, is how they forbid dancing. Dancing is not a part of Adventist culture, because there is a fear that it will incite lust in the participants which might tempt them to break another rule uninformed by principle that insists people not have sex before marriage lest God kill you dead. Our old joke used to be, "Why do adventists forbid oral sex? Because it might lead to dancing." Worst of all, they claim this will make you a happier person, because you remove yourself from temptation. They forbid dancing, one of the basic expressions of human happiness and intimacy, and call it joy and freedom. That is insane and there is no biblical principle they can point to that supports it. It's just an arcane rule, based on another arcane rule, that nobody can really explain but that people follow anyway for fear of rocking the boat or burning in hell. If your religious philosophy claims love as it's central tenant, but freaks out when two people dance close together in a loving way, or two men show each other love and physical affection, it might be prudent to ask why that disconnect exists. I did, and I couldn't find a good reason, other than mindless authority, tradition and culture. The life of Jesus and the core principles of the bible have very little to do with it.
The core of christianity (and Adventism) is quite nice in some ways, of course. Jesus comes along and says, "Hey, you know what might change the world? Being kind in response to violence. Tending to the sick, feeding and clothing the poor, abandoning the crass accumulation of wealth and embracing personal and spiritual growth, loving yourself and loving your neighbor, not judging people. You know, not being a dick and maybe being helpful to someone other than yourself." That part I have no problem with. The part I have a problem with is where the church comes in after and says, "You see that nice guy? He died because you're an evil jerk. You're bad and you should feel bad. Now his dad's real pissed off for killing his kid and because of how bad you are, and he's basically going to have to kill you twice in order to make his point proper, and the only way to get right with him is to abandon your own thoughts and free will to his will, which we have conveniently written down and interpreted for you. Now, I know you're asking, how can I know you really speak for him? Well, it's true because it's true. And hey, if you submit now, not only will you not be murder-killed, but you get to live forever and grow wings!" Well, I'm paraphrasing here.
I think Jesus, like Buddha, had some good ideas that can still change the world if actually followed. I think the authoritarian framework that came after, including Adventism's onerous rule system, is essentially emotional blackmail that is less concerned with changing the world, than with false certainty and control. I do not believe a message of love and grace is at all reconcilable with the idea that God will someday return and smite Adventism's enemies because that act is monstrous, not loving or gracious. Why would you as a practicer of love and grace and a follower of Jesus want harm to your enemies, and why would the ultimate expression of love and intelligence in the universe smite them? Is God so limited that he can't sit you down and present a compelling argument? Rules, punishment and hierarchy seem so obviously human, not divine, in origin that I can't believe they were ever successfully grafted onto ideas of love, humility, tolerance and grace. I don't see anything humble or gracious in the authoritarian assertion that one segment of humanity has found all of the Truth and the rest of us must submit or burn forever. I see no love or compassion in telling people they are shit and should feel bad, giving them only submission to human authority in the name of God as a reason to feel good. In short, Adventists and other authoritarians seem more like people who like the idea of following Jesus more than they actually like following Jesus.
Finally, even if I hadn't left because of all of the above, I would be forced to leave as an unrepentant and not celibate gay man. The church thinks that sex outside of marriage is a sin, therefore, since I am not allowed to marry another man in the eyes of the church, I must be celibate forever, or God must kill me. It also thinks that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" that could tempt any man, that there is no such thing as a sexual orientation, just perversion, and that otherwise straight children can be turned to the gay side simply by seeing happy homosexual couples out in public. It thinks that three bible verses about slavery and rape and not by any possible reading about committed homosexual life partners are applicable to committed homosexual relationships. This is not only ignorant and wrong, it's so wrong it makes me question what other ideas they hold they aren't similarly detached from reality. It's tragic because they end up using all this ignorance as a reason to run openly gay people out of their churches. Because given the choice between loving the sinner and hating the "sin", they choose the hating over the loving more often than not. People leave, not because they can't let go of their sin, but because they can't see the church's love for them through the church's hate for a piece of their nature that they can't change. It's all so unnecessary. I've never felt closer to God than the day I first had sex with a man. It was the first time I felt like a complete person, like I finally fit in the world and understood who I really was. And my former church finds that idea appalling, that I could and would gain any solace from being loving and affectionate with another man. Apparently Jesus was about love, but only so much. And loving, accepting and socializing with the outcast, so long as it was culturally comfortable.
Adventists keep using that word, "love." I think it means something different than they think it means. And ultimately, that's why I had to go.
No Gravity at the center of my brain
I've been working on my second and mostly final leaving adventism post. It's very cathartic, but I can't figure out whether it's a simple blog post with general thoughts about why I left my childhood church, and therefore imperfect and incomplete, or a blistering indictment of Adventism that will devastate any arguments in it's path for all time. If the latter, it's doing a terrible job of being that thing. So it will probably be a blog post, as coherent as I can write it at this time.
I think I'm feeling a little trapped by this very Adventist notion that I can't leave the church, unless I present a compelling and biblically sourced argument to support my ideas. But, of course, I don't agree the bible is the basis of truth and all argumentation must rest on the texts therein. To have any sort of successful debate on a topic, all sides must agree on a basic premise. Adventists generally like to start with "we all agree the Bible is truth and Ellen G. White was God's prophet" and go from there and just kind of awkwardly disengage from people who don't agree with that. But I don't agree with that premise, so we can't have an argument using the bible as a source. I guess the premise I would agree to is "Adventism is a legitimate religious and lifestyle choice." and what I'm arguing is that that lifestyle choice leads to worse outcomes, at least for me, than my other available options. The Bible doesn't really enter into it.
So, fuck it. Imperfect but cathartic argument incoming.
I think I'm feeling a little trapped by this very Adventist notion that I can't leave the church, unless I present a compelling and biblically sourced argument to support my ideas. But, of course, I don't agree the bible is the basis of truth and all argumentation must rest on the texts therein. To have any sort of successful debate on a topic, all sides must agree on a basic premise. Adventists generally like to start with "we all agree the Bible is truth and Ellen G. White was God's prophet" and go from there and just kind of awkwardly disengage from people who don't agree with that. But I don't agree with that premise, so we can't have an argument using the bible as a source. I guess the premise I would agree to is "Adventism is a legitimate religious and lifestyle choice." and what I'm arguing is that that lifestyle choice leads to worse outcomes, at least for me, than my other available options. The Bible doesn't really enter into it.
So, fuck it. Imperfect but cathartic argument incoming.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
I dreamed a dream
I had a dream that I was attending a lecture on the german language, that turned quickly into a giant bollywood musical led by a beautiful actress. She sang sweetly to me about changing my life while back-up dancers in the thousands swirled around in her in beautiful concentric patterns. Each back-up dancer was also a fiercely devoted fan of the actress and wept for joy to hear her sing, reaching their arms out as they danced like teenagers at a Beatles concert. All I could think was: I just came here to learn german.
And, after I woke up: Maybe some all-dancing, all-singing ancient goddess is trying to tell me something.
Maybe the universe is trying to tell me something.
Maybe, and most likely, my subconscious is trying to tell me something.
Maybe.
And, after I woke up: Maybe some all-dancing, all-singing ancient goddess is trying to tell me something.
Maybe the universe is trying to tell me something.
Maybe, and most likely, my subconscious is trying to tell me something.
Maybe.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Important Stories
I have written a birthday story for my birthday, as my gift to you. Or your punishment, depending on how well you like it and what you know you did. Please enjoy, or don't, as is your custom.
Friday, February 01, 2013
Luddite 4 Life
It occurs to me that I should probably actually post to this blog once in a while if I want people to read it. And maybe post things worth reading, but we'll worry about that later. I've mostly been dragging my feet on "leaving adventism, part 2" because it's a big post, kind of a milestone for me personally, and I want to say what I have to say in a concise, but well-argued and well-rounded manner. In other words, I'm trying to put more effort into it than my usual toss-off posts.
So, in the spirit of getting back into the spirit of writing, I present this toss-off post, as written by a cranky old man.
Goddamn that twitter. I say goddamn it. I have reluctantly come to realize that not only is twitter just about the most worthless place on the internet to have any sort of conversation, I have a personal problem regarding people being wrong on the internet. And since 140char is not enough space to establish context and caveats for any given statement, any given statement is likely to be wrong, as read in plain english, absent the necessary context or caveats. So, I could waste my whole damn life attempting to fight for truth in a medium that is hostile to discussions of truth, fact, evidence and reasoning. In short, twitter is not a medium for discussing basically anything of substance.
"Well, duh," you say, "everyone knows that."
To which I reply, "Do they? Because, did you notice how rapidly journalists and politicians, ostensibly the keepers of the keys to complicated, nuanced highly-detailed arguments and ideas, stampeded to using the medium least capable of supporting a discussion about any of those things? And isn't it their constituents that dragged them there? Have you noticed how political argument has gone from bold, overly concise assertion on twitter to emotional appeal in the form of picture with out-of-context quote typed over it? Like 140char was a space just too big and terrifyingly open with which to construct a thought?"
And now there's Vine, because a one minute Youtube video is just too goddamn tedious to sit through. Okay, okay, I keed a bit. Much like twitter, on a technological level it's pretty clever. The ability to make a stop motion, or edited-on-the-fly little six second snippet and post it to your friends relatively rapidly is technology with great potential. Even greater, if the same tools could be used to create a video for beings with an attention span somewhat longer than a hamster. But still, I've watched maybe 20 of the things and while yes there was the usual cats, duck face and lunch pictures there were also "magic" tricks, stop-motion, time-lapse and loop videos that seemed genuinely clever and worth my time. And if this technology actually inspires someone to get more expensive and better tools and make even longer, more intricate little movies then frankly that's fantastic.
Among my many and obvious problems is, increasingly, a bias towards ideas and activities that take longer than a few seconds to grapple with, because, in my opinion, most ideas require more effort and more time to grapple with them properly. So I'm attempting to re-orient myself to the media I use, in ways that encourage honest grappling with ideas that I find important and interesting, and minimizing time spent looking at and then forgetting minutia in shorter time frames. In other words, the problem is not twitter, Vine or Facebook, the problem is how (and maybe whether) I use it. And honestly, if I don't find my preferred medium of communication on the internet, there's nothing stopping me from creating it myself.
For instance, I have an idea for a wrapper service for twitter that facilitates longer conversations. It would be presented largely in the same format as twitter, and wraps an entire thread around an individual tweet (with room to write substantially more than 140 char). I want to call it screech, because that's what the arguments on twitter would be akin to. So, instead of trying to reply to someone's tweet directly in twitter, you and your friends would be reading twitter in screech, and then any tweets that inspired a longer conversation in screech would be a different color or something, and when you clicked on it, you would expand a series of posts in screech anchored to that tweet. In essence, expandable threads for twitter with individual tweets as the first post of each thread. See, that would be useful. And if anyone wants to make this before I find the time to, that would be awesome.
Until that happy day, I am creating new rules for myself and twitter.
1) No arguing, ever. People are going to say some stupid bullshit on twitter. I am going to let them be wrong, because there's no space on twitter to argue a point properly. It's like trying to ballroom dance in a supply closet.
2) I like snark. Snark is okay. I might tweet stupid jokes, I enjoy reading stupid jokes on twitter. I will snark and not take it too seriously.
3) I will be careful of grandiose statements on twitter. There's only enough room to assert and not to support, and a big idea usually needs support, or at least context. No idea sounds particularly grandiose when shouted into a tin can. It's the wrong format for my Big Idea.
4) I am primarily going to use twitter to link longer, more thoughtful collections of words that I or someone else has written for the consideration of my followers. Self-promotion and/or links to longer bits of information, are really just the best use of twitter in my opinion.
I'm still not sure what I'm going to do about Facebook. Or Vine. Or Youtube, except I'm going to try and stop worrying about the pointless minutia therein. And maybe actively posting pointless minutia therein. And I'm still processing whether or when I'm going to start a blog of some sort under my real name, because I think there's real merit to doing that if I want people to take the things I write seriously. Whether the things I write are worth taking seriously, is still a matter of ongoing discussion.
But still, goddamn that twitter. You kids, I swear.
So, in the spirit of getting back into the spirit of writing, I present this toss-off post, as written by a cranky old man.
Goddamn that twitter. I say goddamn it. I have reluctantly come to realize that not only is twitter just about the most worthless place on the internet to have any sort of conversation, I have a personal problem regarding people being wrong on the internet. And since 140char is not enough space to establish context and caveats for any given statement, any given statement is likely to be wrong, as read in plain english, absent the necessary context or caveats. So, I could waste my whole damn life attempting to fight for truth in a medium that is hostile to discussions of truth, fact, evidence and reasoning. In short, twitter is not a medium for discussing basically anything of substance.
"Well, duh," you say, "everyone knows that."
To which I reply, "Do they? Because, did you notice how rapidly journalists and politicians, ostensibly the keepers of the keys to complicated, nuanced highly-detailed arguments and ideas, stampeded to using the medium least capable of supporting a discussion about any of those things? And isn't it their constituents that dragged them there? Have you noticed how political argument has gone from bold, overly concise assertion on twitter to emotional appeal in the form of picture with out-of-context quote typed over it? Like 140char was a space just too big and terrifyingly open with which to construct a thought?"
And now there's Vine, because a one minute Youtube video is just too goddamn tedious to sit through. Okay, okay, I keed a bit. Much like twitter, on a technological level it's pretty clever. The ability to make a stop motion, or edited-on-the-fly little six second snippet and post it to your friends relatively rapidly is technology with great potential. Even greater, if the same tools could be used to create a video for beings with an attention span somewhat longer than a hamster. But still, I've watched maybe 20 of the things and while yes there was the usual cats, duck face and lunch pictures there were also "magic" tricks, stop-motion, time-lapse and loop videos that seemed genuinely clever and worth my time. And if this technology actually inspires someone to get more expensive and better tools and make even longer, more intricate little movies then frankly that's fantastic.
Among my many and obvious problems is, increasingly, a bias towards ideas and activities that take longer than a few seconds to grapple with, because, in my opinion, most ideas require more effort and more time to grapple with them properly. So I'm attempting to re-orient myself to the media I use, in ways that encourage honest grappling with ideas that I find important and interesting, and minimizing time spent looking at and then forgetting minutia in shorter time frames. In other words, the problem is not twitter, Vine or Facebook, the problem is how (and maybe whether) I use it. And honestly, if I don't find my preferred medium of communication on the internet, there's nothing stopping me from creating it myself.
For instance, I have an idea for a wrapper service for twitter that facilitates longer conversations. It would be presented largely in the same format as twitter, and wraps an entire thread around an individual tweet (with room to write substantially more than 140 char). I want to call it screech, because that's what the arguments on twitter would be akin to. So, instead of trying to reply to someone's tweet directly in twitter, you and your friends would be reading twitter in screech, and then any tweets that inspired a longer conversation in screech would be a different color or something, and when you clicked on it, you would expand a series of posts in screech anchored to that tweet. In essence, expandable threads for twitter with individual tweets as the first post of each thread. See, that would be useful. And if anyone wants to make this before I find the time to, that would be awesome.
Until that happy day, I am creating new rules for myself and twitter.
1) No arguing, ever. People are going to say some stupid bullshit on twitter. I am going to let them be wrong, because there's no space on twitter to argue a point properly. It's like trying to ballroom dance in a supply closet.
2) I like snark. Snark is okay. I might tweet stupid jokes, I enjoy reading stupid jokes on twitter. I will snark and not take it too seriously.
3) I will be careful of grandiose statements on twitter. There's only enough room to assert and not to support, and a big idea usually needs support, or at least context. No idea sounds particularly grandiose when shouted into a tin can. It's the wrong format for my Big Idea.
4) I am primarily going to use twitter to link longer, more thoughtful collections of words that I or someone else has written for the consideration of my followers. Self-promotion and/or links to longer bits of information, are really just the best use of twitter in my opinion.
I'm still not sure what I'm going to do about Facebook. Or Vine. Or Youtube, except I'm going to try and stop worrying about the pointless minutia therein. And maybe actively posting pointless minutia therein. And I'm still processing whether or when I'm going to start a blog of some sort under my real name, because I think there's real merit to doing that if I want people to take the things I write seriously. Whether the things I write are worth taking seriously, is still a matter of ongoing discussion.
But still, goddamn that twitter. You kids, I swear.
Very Important.
People get that the title of this blog and the greek statue background are my way of poking fun at my own sense of self-importance right?
Monday, January 14, 2013
Science Rides Again
In my zeal to be "right" yesterday, I neglected to make a few simple points about science and Aaron Swartz and science publishing in general.
It's transparent bullshit what the fed was doing to him over the JSTOR incident. Illegal and rude his actions may have been, but a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient. Any jail time over a couple of days seems ridiculous. Even then, it seems debatable. They clearly were gunning for him for other reasons.
I learned today, JSTOR is a non-profit institution, formed to help libraries and increase availability to scientific journals, especially online. With this is mind, I think Swartz's stunt was mis-guided. He had many good ideas, but sticking it to an institution that would probably have been happy to have him as a consultant to make information more widely available wasn't one of them.
I don't question the benefits of open access. I don't think journals need to live forever. I question attacking benign institutions with hacktivism instead of, I don't know, being helpful and helping them build a better open source distribution system and transition the peer review process to the new publishing environment. Science would like to continue while we sort out open access. Maybe we could preserve existing peer review and then transition once a new framework is in place, instead of throw it away as bullshit and shrug in answer to "what now?" The problem I have with Schwartz was his method, and his lack of solution to the problem, not the problem he was trying to tackle. And I'm not really comforted by a lot of non-scientists seemingly ready to tear down an existing process that is vital, without a plan to help replace it, or make the transition orderly.
Academia, in general, is widely supportive of open access to their articles. The fact that it's not free does not mean it's a conspiracy to keep it from the public.
Science has a culture just like anything else. The fact that it moves slow is not a conspiracy. It takes time to change habits, and as a culture it is cautious in changing habits and culture for fear of sacrificing accuracy and effective peer review in changing too quickly or too rashly. Also, as a culture it has weaknesses and biases, stubborn older generations, young, bright-eyed idealists and everything else. It also has pretty good checks and balances in the form of peer review and you won't find a more open-minded and curious group of people willing to be swayed by a good argument and evidence anywhere else. I think concerns about science are best addressed straight-fowardly and not with subversive stunts. Unlike most other societal institutions power is diluted, not concentrated in a few people. So conspiracy theories don't make much sense. Science just doesn't have much an authoritarian organizational structure that would enable selfish retention of power and money, unlike the RIAA, Wall Street or government.
I don't think scientists are infallible. Far from it. I'm gearing up to start writing about some fringe science and philosophy and in my reading have decided science and its underlying philosophies have some big blind spots. I don't think science should be regarded as mindlessly authoritative. Scientists are sometimes wrong, and sometimes try to make their studies say more than they do. The community is usually happy to correct them. In any case, any figure with enough experience and knowledge to be considered an authority, should be able to explain themselves when challenged.
I think the interface between scientists and the public is woefully inadequate. Given the completely irrational state of politics and finance and the way the evidence for global warming has been downgraded to the level of an opinion, I think it's done a poor job of making the case not only for the application of reason, evidence, logic and math in solving problems, but in fighting for unpopular theories supported by a metric ton of solid evidence. Scientific journalists and popular science books aren't quite cutting it. Or maybe enough people aren't reading them. Or maybe the good and supported stuff is still too drowned out in pseudo-scientific noise. I'm not sure. But I wish we had a better mechanism for cutting out the noise and I don't think it's impossible.
I'm happy to have my ideas challenged. I don't much like being wrong, but I know there's lots I don't know and I frequently will be. When I fight for an idea, it's because I think it's important. If you think I'm wrong or unfair, I expect you to tell me. That said, I'm still working on a style of argumentation that convinces without beating someone else over the head with my ideas or doesn't get needlessly aggressive.
And that's all I have to say about that.
It's transparent bullshit what the fed was doing to him over the JSTOR incident. Illegal and rude his actions may have been, but a slap on the wrist would have been sufficient. Any jail time over a couple of days seems ridiculous. Even then, it seems debatable. They clearly were gunning for him for other reasons.
I learned today, JSTOR is a non-profit institution, formed to help libraries and increase availability to scientific journals, especially online. With this is mind, I think Swartz's stunt was mis-guided. He had many good ideas, but sticking it to an institution that would probably have been happy to have him as a consultant to make information more widely available wasn't one of them.
I don't question the benefits of open access. I don't think journals need to live forever. I question attacking benign institutions with hacktivism instead of, I don't know, being helpful and helping them build a better open source distribution system and transition the peer review process to the new publishing environment. Science would like to continue while we sort out open access. Maybe we could preserve existing peer review and then transition once a new framework is in place, instead of throw it away as bullshit and shrug in answer to "what now?" The problem I have with Schwartz was his method, and his lack of solution to the problem, not the problem he was trying to tackle. And I'm not really comforted by a lot of non-scientists seemingly ready to tear down an existing process that is vital, without a plan to help replace it, or make the transition orderly.
Academia, in general, is widely supportive of open access to their articles. The fact that it's not free does not mean it's a conspiracy to keep it from the public.
Science has a culture just like anything else. The fact that it moves slow is not a conspiracy. It takes time to change habits, and as a culture it is cautious in changing habits and culture for fear of sacrificing accuracy and effective peer review in changing too quickly or too rashly. Also, as a culture it has weaknesses and biases, stubborn older generations, young, bright-eyed idealists and everything else. It also has pretty good checks and balances in the form of peer review and you won't find a more open-minded and curious group of people willing to be swayed by a good argument and evidence anywhere else. I think concerns about science are best addressed straight-fowardly and not with subversive stunts. Unlike most other societal institutions power is diluted, not concentrated in a few people. So conspiracy theories don't make much sense. Science just doesn't have much an authoritarian organizational structure that would enable selfish retention of power and money, unlike the RIAA, Wall Street or government.
I don't think scientists are infallible. Far from it. I'm gearing up to start writing about some fringe science and philosophy and in my reading have decided science and its underlying philosophies have some big blind spots. I don't think science should be regarded as mindlessly authoritative. Scientists are sometimes wrong, and sometimes try to make their studies say more than they do. The community is usually happy to correct them. In any case, any figure with enough experience and knowledge to be considered an authority, should be able to explain themselves when challenged.
I think the interface between scientists and the public is woefully inadequate. Given the completely irrational state of politics and finance and the way the evidence for global warming has been downgraded to the level of an opinion, I think it's done a poor job of making the case not only for the application of reason, evidence, logic and math in solving problems, but in fighting for unpopular theories supported by a metric ton of solid evidence. Scientific journalists and popular science books aren't quite cutting it. Or maybe enough people aren't reading them. Or maybe the good and supported stuff is still too drowned out in pseudo-scientific noise. I'm not sure. But I wish we had a better mechanism for cutting out the noise and I don't think it's impossible.
I'm happy to have my ideas challenged. I don't much like being wrong, but I know there's lots I don't know and I frequently will be. When I fight for an idea, it's because I think it's important. If you think I'm wrong or unfair, I expect you to tell me. That said, I'm still working on a style of argumentation that convinces without beating someone else over the head with my ideas or doesn't get needlessly aggressive.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Editorial Patience
I really think I need to start sitting on posts overnight and then doing a second pass, editing for clarity. So let it be written, so let it be done!
Sunday, January 13, 2013
The Problematic Liberation of Science
You known, it's sad the Aaron Swartz killed himself. He was bright, intelligent and accomplished quite a bit. He clearly had many laudable goals and/or ideas. But his worst idea, and one he seemed unprepared for the consequences of, was his idea for how to reform scientific publishing. For those who don't know, most academic articles are kept behind the paywalls of for-profit publishers, and the authors are not compensated for purchases made. In fact, as a published journal author (1 article, woo!), I can tell you that not only that, but scientists have to pay handsomely to get their articles published at all. It's an old model, it's unwieldy, it could be better. Swartz's idea of fixing it was to steal (acquire without paying for) millions of articles, I assume with intent to publish to the masses because he had already done a similar stunt with the PACER database. I've seen a lot of commentary about how he didn't really steal anything, or he was trying to save science or bring it to the masses and that what he was doing was a self-evidently good thing. And I would like to argue that a bit, because I find it highly arguable.
First, was the problem real? Yes, absolutely. I think things like paywalled publishers profiting off of the distribution of scientific articles and research is a relic of the past, that could easily be replaced by the internet as long as a suitable source of funding could be found and the peer-review practices were solid. I think the apparently sky-rocketing costs of access to these articles are directly linked to the sky-rocketing cost of college tuition, if obviously not wholly responsible. So yes, I agree this is a system that could be much cheaper, and much more open.
I do NOT agree that scientists are hiding something, or that the masses are being denied access to important information. For the most part, anything you would want to effectively comment on, utilize or completely understand will require some training in the relevant field. Most people who go get this training will end up with access to these articles through their school or employer. I have yet to hear exactly who it is could make use of these articles that is being denied access. I do agree that there's a larger problem in the interface between science and the general public in that the scientists generally write for each other (which is reasonable) and the non-scientist doesn't really have the education to grasp the context, significance or lack thereof of the results.
Second, was the problem pressing? Maybe? I don't hear a lot of grumbling about it in my small professional scientific circle, but that's largely because we all work for an academic institution that pays for it and don't have access problems. But I imagine most scientists would be happy with lower publishing costs. And they'd probably be happy to be paid for purchased copies of their articles, although that's never going to be a driving motivation for most scientists, because their actual audience is relatively tiny. Remember, this is written for review by peers, and not for submission to the general public. This doesn't mean they have something to hide, it just means the research is typically complicated and written for peers who have an understanding of the tools, concepts and methods involved in investigating complicated topics. But regardless, people with good research tend to get published, and I don't think that scientists are having problems discussing and peer reviewing research for each other. So I would say the cost is an increasingly big problem, but does not actually keep scientists from doing science with each other just yet.
So what's my problem with how Swartz handled it? He went straight for the illegal option. Cory Doctorow in his remembrance for his friend, also mentions Swartz was big believer in directly challenging authority and subverting laws he found unjust. This is laudable to some degree, but there were a wide variety of options less sensationalistic than ripping off JSTOR, even if he thought their business model is bullshit. Bullshit or not, when you fight the system, and break the law, the system fights back. But he could have used his remaining money to fund a viral campaign of the brokenness of that system, he could have approached JSTOR, individual universities with an alternative or a compelling argument. He could have done any number of things to convince people, some of whom would not have taken much convincing, that scientific publishing needed to be reformed and he could have done it in a way that conveyed respect for the scientific need to have SOME respected body publishing articles after peer-review for further peer-review. Because that's how it works, your articles are peer-reviewed by people knowledgeable in your field before publishing, and then reviewed at-large after publishing. How would destroying JSTOR today preserve that system? How would you fund a replacement? How do you fund the editors that oversee the peer-review? These are not easy questions. And it's not so easily fixed by stealing from JSTOR.
But, you say, is more and open exchange of information always better for science? Well, yes, but the scientists aren't currently having problems communicating with each other. But, haven't talented amateurs contributed greatly to fields like computer science, shouldn't they have all the data? Well, yes, but everyone can have a computer and tinker with code. Not everyone can do super-collider research, and the people in a position to do it have generally already have access to all of the articles they need. As hard as it might be to believe, doing science might require more or different education than that required to write computer code. And talented amateurs contribute to harder material sciences all the time, especially in fields like astronomy, but usually in conjunction with professional scientists. Even so, JSTOR ended up releasing millions of articles for free, in the last few weeks, so what exactly is the problem? Who is it exactly that suffers from lack of necessary information to do their research?
But, you say, aren't scientists just being too secretive? What are they hiding that they don't want us to know about? Nothing. Outside of classified defense research, they are hiding nothing from you. The reason it seems locked up an inaccessible to you, the casual observer, is an accident of tradition from the pre-interenet days, when published journals were the best way for scientists to present research. Believe it or not, they might be loathe to completely abandon a system with a sound methodology for peer review just because you're excited about your ipod. And while yes, I wish they would get to re-organizing the publishing into more modern and affordable methods, why on earth would they want scientifically illiterate activists to lead that effort? Where are the scientists asking the computer hackers to save them from JSTOR? In addition, I have yet to meet a scientist that won't send you any of his published papers in pdf form if you simply just ask for them. It's not that you're dumb either, it's that these topics are just very complicated. If you wanted to read a paper on atmospheric physics and make sense of it, you would first need the relevant training in statistics, and atmospheric science and basic physics and calculus, and by the time you're getting that, you're already in school with access to the paper.
Beyond that, is "scientists are keeping things from us!" really the argument you're making? I understand that the entertainment, financial and political industries have greatly eroded the public's trust in authority, expertise and the belief that the people in power are behaving with any kind of basic honesty. Pivoting to science and making the same accusation is just a huge mistake. There's no conspiracy of scientists because, as mentioned, they don't profit off of their articles and the restriction of information is not malicious and does not yield them more money or power (well, the publishers get both, but not the scientists). And even with the publishers, it's more a matter of staying relevant than squashing ideas. You know who else thinks scientists are involved in some kind of giant conspiracy? Global warming deniers, anti-vaccers, flat-earthers and every other fringe group that doesn't like scientific results because they conflict with their own unsupported biases and decides the whole enterprise must be rotten from the top down. Scientists aren't keeping anything from you. That doesn't mean scientific publishing practices aren't a little bullshit, but keep in mind they kind of have scientists by the balls too. Provide a better, cheaper equally scientifically robust platform to publish in, and they will jump ship, but it's going to be hard, and long, and time-involving and will require more care than a publicity stunt.
So what are my solutions? Well, I'm glad you asked. I think scientific publishing is much more honest and straight-forward than the doubters think it is. Having said that, I think scientists need to take the lead in pushing peer review away from the old-fashioned publishing houses and into more accessible online journals with the same robust peer review and no charge for download. I think the general public needs to understand that just because they have google, it doesn't mean they can science, that there remain trades that take years of training and dedication to become competent in, and they are probably not qualified to fully understand the implications of an article if they are not trained in that field. You don't assume you know more than your doctor about medicine, why would you assume you know more about physics than a physicist? In terms of communicating with the public, I think we need to hire either better journalists (most science journalists are terrible and misrepresent or misunderstand the studies they're reporting on) or the scientific community needs to make a concerted effort to create an information buffer that translates the science we have into readable language and, crucially, how much evidentiary support a given conclusion actually has (for instance 1 study or 1000 studies and with what degree of confidence). I've actually been thinking about making a web page for this.
As a larger problem, education is clearly to the internet instead of solely through the traditional institutions of learning. In addition, university costs are increasingly well above the rate of inflation. There needs to be alternate methods of acquiring accreditation and qualification that don't necessarily rely on paying through the nose to go to a university. There also needs to be the same amount of rigor on the internet required in an intense education and I'm not sure how to manage that. But having seen every yahoo with access to station data that they think disproves global warming calmly and patiently get a crash course on climate science from people who've actually been trained and have years of experience in this stuff, there needs to be some sort of understanding that everyone's knowledge is not equal just because google exists. There needs to be some standard of evidence and qualification to analyze evidence higher than, "I read about it on wikipedia."
In short, science could communicate it's ideas and methods better, and could probably benefit from more modern and cost-effective publishing practices. But please super hackers, maybe try talking to people and convincing them to safely and calmly change their behavior and preserve some sense of order and progress in the field before attempting to tear it all down in a fit of pique. Because that's just about your ego and impatience and it's bullshit.
I Got 28 Problems
For some insane reason, it seems important to me to explain myself, and why I no longer claim Seventh-Day Adventism, or christianity in general. Well, the last half isn't quite true, but it's true enough. So I'm going to take a couple of posts to explain it, in more detail than you require. Everyone is immediately forgiven for choosing not to read this.
I get the impression, largely from family, but from christians in general that one can't simply leave their faith except in error, inability to truly grasp christian teachings or by clearly choosing to do evil after being successfully tempted by demons. I get this impression from the hundreds of times I heard someone's motivations for leaving the church described in these ways. As I am problematically vain about my intellect, I feel compelled to explain that no, it's not just because I am a simple lamb who wandered into a den of temptation and got hoodwinked by the first smooth-talking drag temptress that sauntered my way. I left because I no longer believed just about anything Seventh-Day Adventists believe, which seemed like a pretty good reason at the time. I have more to say on that process later, but for now, I'd like to start with the basics.
I get the impression, largely from family, but from christians in general that one can't simply leave their faith except in error, inability to truly grasp christian teachings or by clearly choosing to do evil after being successfully tempted by demons. I get this impression from the hundreds of times I heard someone's motivations for leaving the church described in these ways. As I am problematically vain about my intellect, I feel compelled to explain that no, it's not just because I am a simple lamb who wandered into a den of temptation and got hoodwinked by the first smooth-talking drag temptress that sauntered my way. I left because I no longer believed just about anything Seventh-Day Adventists believe, which seemed like a pretty good reason at the time. I have more to say on that process later, but for now, I'd like to start with the basics.
I am not a Seventh-Day Adventist because I don't believe in any of their 28 fundamental beliefs. Even though I was born into this church, and it took me a long time to leave it, I am not living under its shadow, living a "sinful" life in defiance of what I was was taught to be right. I have decided what was taught to me was NOT right (in part, but in important parts), and that I could not in good conscience try or claim to follow it. My problems with the 28 fundamental beliefs are many, so let's just start at the top and work our way down.
From the opening paragraph:
Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church's understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God's Holy Word.
I don't agree with any of this, but the bolded parts seem the most important. I do not claim any christian creed, let alone the Bible. And I certainly don't think there are fundamental beliefs I must take from therein. Why would I think that? It starts and ends as a tautology: believe the Bible is the holy word of God because the bible tells you to believe it is the holy word of God. This is the basic reasoning inherent in a chain letter, and like a chain letter it boils down not so much to an argument but a threat. "Believe in this book or die forever." I have so much more on that topic but it will have to wait until the next post. For now, let me just say I don't take kindly to random books trying to make me afraid of the unproven and untestable. And my life experience has not been that Bible believers are the most happy and well-adjusted people.
The second bolded passage could probably fill a post on its own, but it's hugely problematic. It essentially gives each congregation and the general conference leeway to cherry-pick biblical passages as they see fit or "as the spirit moves them." Which I might feel is an unfair generalization if they weren't on their 32nd year of discussing whether women are capable of being spiritual and moral leaders of churches and on their first year of tentatively discussing whether running gay people out of their churches might not fit with christian principles. In short, I know they understand the idea of present and eternal truth because I've heard them preach about it and they freely wear mixed fibers and have a conspicuous lack of red tents dotting their church lawns. Therefore, if they were serious about discerning cultural from timeless truth and ongoing spiritual growth, they would have a formal method of periodically reviewing church beliefs as culture changes, and would apply what they understand of the context in which those verses were written, the core principles of the bible and modern society's biases to try and separate the two. I can't be part of or even a respect a religion that changes "when it feels like it," which is what it must mean to be moved by the holy spirit, a feeling, rather than as is deemed necessary by their intellect, understanding of the basic principles of their religious book and their experience.
As for the 28 beliefs, I will try to be concise, but I feel it's worth it to go through each one. I'm not going to provide exhaustive reasons for why I don't believe these and I'm not trying to convince anyone else to disbelieve, but I do want to go over them to show that I've thought about each of them. For the sake of not repeating myself, please note that the primary reason for not believing in any of these as stated is they all require me to believe that the Bible is true sans evidence.
The second bolded passage could probably fill a post on its own, but it's hugely problematic. It essentially gives each congregation and the general conference leeway to cherry-pick biblical passages as they see fit or "as the spirit moves them." Which I might feel is an unfair generalization if they weren't on their 32nd year of discussing whether women are capable of being spiritual and moral leaders of churches and on their first year of tentatively discussing whether running gay people out of their churches might not fit with christian principles. In short, I know they understand the idea of present and eternal truth because I've heard them preach about it and they freely wear mixed fibers and have a conspicuous lack of red tents dotting their church lawns. Therefore, if they were serious about discerning cultural from timeless truth and ongoing spiritual growth, they would have a formal method of periodically reviewing church beliefs as culture changes, and would apply what they understand of the context in which those verses were written, the core principles of the bible and modern society's biases to try and separate the two. I can't be part of or even a respect a religion that changes "when it feels like it," which is what it must mean to be moved by the holy spirit, a feeling, rather than as is deemed necessary by their intellect, understanding of the basic principles of their religious book and their experience.
As for the 28 beliefs, I will try to be concise, but I feel it's worth it to go through each one. I'm not going to provide exhaustive reasons for why I don't believe these and I'm not trying to convince anyone else to disbelieve, but I do want to go over them to show that I've thought about each of them. For the sake of not repeating myself, please note that the primary reason for not believing in any of these as stated is they all require me to believe that the Bible is true sans evidence.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
To Live and Blank in L.A.
My review of Mr. Blank by Justin Robinson is up on CMS. Take a gander if the mood strikes you.
Monday, January 07, 2013
Conceding Authority, Part 2
I think it is now my official policy to add "part 1" retroactively to any post that turns out to have a part 2. Because I wrote part 1 of this post months ago and now I feel stupid for not following up with it like I intended to. The issue, as I recall, was Romney's concession speech, which contained a couple problematic "Democrats may have won . . . but I'm right." kind of speech in parts. Specifically:
1). "We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes."
Well, kinda. Hannah Arendt is thought to have once said, "Every year civilization is invaded by millions of barbarians; they are called children." Which is true, of course. Kids don't exit the womb understanding sharing, restraint and how to talk to people they don't necessarily like and make up after feelings get hurt, their very patient parents teach it to them, and try to model it for them, and hope some of it sticks once they get out into a world filled with adults furiously rationalizing away their own lack of sharing, restraint, friendliness and forgiveness.
I guess we all know that. My specific complaint is the kind of dog whistle assumptions inherent in this kind of statement coming from a republican. They've been saying for many years now that the most stable families are a man, a woman and a couple kids and NOTHING ELSE and keep hammering that point home like liberals just HATE the idea of the nuclear family. Like we aren't all cognizant of the benefits of good parenting and that has SOME effect on how children turn out as adults. What we've also observed, however, is the messed up kids that grow up with a mother and father and then go kill people for no reason. Or the perfectly good kids raised by a single mother, or a single father, or grandparents, or gay parents or any human being with a good head on their shoulders. We've also noticed that most kids leave the nest with some damage, their parents being human and having failed them in some manner, and that it's the job of every new adult to take responsibility for their own behavior and work past childhood trauma. Whether that child had a textbook nuclear family is kind of incidental to this process.
And of course, what really grates about this kind of message is why they bring it up at all in the context of a political campaign. They're saying, "Nuclear families are the most important thing . . . . and that's why gay people can't get married." If families were the most important thing, if liberty were the most important thing to republicans, they would recognize that citizens end up forming all sorts of families, are free to do so, and that the important thing is encouraging the importance of families, all types of families, and making sure they have stable, safe, thriving communities to raise their children in. The insistence on the nuclear family as the only workable prototype has much more to do fundamentalist christianity, authoritarianism and, in Mitt's case, mormon patriarchy where everyone listens to dad and then mom. What is important about a family: the love, support and stability or the specific, arbitrary rules on how to form them as delivered by men in suits and women with big hair?
2). "We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward. "
Again, kinda. The idea of the mythical job creator has really gotten out of hand recently. The republican version of job creation is: Give money to the already rich, kiss their ring, and then watch as they rain jobs down to a grateful populace. This is when they're not describing the wealthy as the hardest working Americans who got where they are by a drive to succeed, an eye for needed goods/services and not listening to naysayers. I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure job creation is sparked by demand for a product or service, which requires businessmen and entrepreneurs who want to make money providing this service for more people AND a middle class that can afford to pay for it. Jobs are created because the demand and opportunity is there, and someone has the resources to increase capacity accordingly. A .2% addition in tax breaks to their 2 million dollar stockpile and a feeling of being loved and cherished by an adoring proletariat just isn't the deciding factor.
Remember, these are the people in suits telling you seriously that they are the only adults in the room. The ones telling you their feelings must be soothed and no regulations must be given because parents just don't understand. This whole "pity the job creators" routine rests on the notion that they are currently maligned or unfairly restrained, and if we'd just not tax them or regulate them they'd bring about a glorious capitalist paradise out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact that these regulations and taxes exist for fairly sound historical and social reasons and the paucity of examples where rich people just created jobs for the hell of it doesn't seem to enter into it.
There was probably a case to make for the unfair burdens of the wealthy when extreme wealth was taxed at 75 or 90%. But I find it hard to swallow, in the year of our lord 2012, after the very rich have been getting very richer for 30+ years as regulations and and tax rates have fallen away, that they are the members of society most deserving our pity. That, if the nation "must sacrifice" and tighten our belts in order to be financially sound, the people who have gained so much from the support and participation of the rest of us should be exempt. If they were interested in being leaders worth a little respect and praise, they would lead by example and sacrifice first, or, at the very fucking least, be willing to join the rest of us in shouldering the load in tough times. Instead, they run for their fainting couches at the merest hint that they might own anyone or any country anything in return for their good fortune. I am not impressed by people who call themselves "job creators" but seem to mean "small gods."
3). "And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics."
I don't have much to add to this one. As jokes go, it was pretty funny.
We look to our teachers and professors, we count on you not just to teach, but to inspire our children with a passion for learning and discovery. We look to our pastors and priests and rabbis and counselors of all kinds to testify of the enduring principles upon which our society is built: honesty, charity, integrity and family. We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes. We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward. And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics.In the first part, I was more concerned with the initial half of the paragraph, today I just want to add a few comments to the last 4 sentences.
1). "We look to our parents, for in the final analysis everything depends on the success of our homes."
Well, kinda. Hannah Arendt is thought to have once said, "Every year civilization is invaded by millions of barbarians; they are called children." Which is true, of course. Kids don't exit the womb understanding sharing, restraint and how to talk to people they don't necessarily like and make up after feelings get hurt, their very patient parents teach it to them, and try to model it for them, and hope some of it sticks once they get out into a world filled with adults furiously rationalizing away their own lack of sharing, restraint, friendliness and forgiveness.
I guess we all know that. My specific complaint is the kind of dog whistle assumptions inherent in this kind of statement coming from a republican. They've been saying for many years now that the most stable families are a man, a woman and a couple kids and NOTHING ELSE and keep hammering that point home like liberals just HATE the idea of the nuclear family. Like we aren't all cognizant of the benefits of good parenting and that has SOME effect on how children turn out as adults. What we've also observed, however, is the messed up kids that grow up with a mother and father and then go kill people for no reason. Or the perfectly good kids raised by a single mother, or a single father, or grandparents, or gay parents or any human being with a good head on their shoulders. We've also noticed that most kids leave the nest with some damage, their parents being human and having failed them in some manner, and that it's the job of every new adult to take responsibility for their own behavior and work past childhood trauma. Whether that child had a textbook nuclear family is kind of incidental to this process.
And of course, what really grates about this kind of message is why they bring it up at all in the context of a political campaign. They're saying, "Nuclear families are the most important thing . . . . and that's why gay people can't get married." If families were the most important thing, if liberty were the most important thing to republicans, they would recognize that citizens end up forming all sorts of families, are free to do so, and that the important thing is encouraging the importance of families, all types of families, and making sure they have stable, safe, thriving communities to raise their children in. The insistence on the nuclear family as the only workable prototype has much more to do fundamentalist christianity, authoritarianism and, in Mitt's case, mormon patriarchy where everyone listens to dad and then mom. What is important about a family: the love, support and stability or the specific, arbitrary rules on how to form them as delivered by men in suits and women with big hair?
2). "We look to job creators of all kinds. We’re counting on you to invest, to hire, to step forward. "
Again, kinda. The idea of the mythical job creator has really gotten out of hand recently. The republican version of job creation is: Give money to the already rich, kiss their ring, and then watch as they rain jobs down to a grateful populace. This is when they're not describing the wealthy as the hardest working Americans who got where they are by a drive to succeed, an eye for needed goods/services and not listening to naysayers. I'm no economist, but I'm pretty sure job creation is sparked by demand for a product or service, which requires businessmen and entrepreneurs who want to make money providing this service for more people AND a middle class that can afford to pay for it. Jobs are created because the demand and opportunity is there, and someone has the resources to increase capacity accordingly. A .2% addition in tax breaks to their 2 million dollar stockpile and a feeling of being loved and cherished by an adoring proletariat just isn't the deciding factor.
Remember, these are the people in suits telling you seriously that they are the only adults in the room. The ones telling you their feelings must be soothed and no regulations must be given because parents just don't understand. This whole "pity the job creators" routine rests on the notion that they are currently maligned or unfairly restrained, and if we'd just not tax them or regulate them they'd bring about a glorious capitalist paradise out of the goodness of their hearts. The fact that these regulations and taxes exist for fairly sound historical and social reasons and the paucity of examples where rich people just created jobs for the hell of it doesn't seem to enter into it.
There was probably a case to make for the unfair burdens of the wealthy when extreme wealth was taxed at 75 or 90%. But I find it hard to swallow, in the year of our lord 2012, after the very rich have been getting very richer for 30+ years as regulations and and tax rates have fallen away, that they are the members of society most deserving our pity. That, if the nation "must sacrifice" and tighten our belts in order to be financially sound, the people who have gained so much from the support and participation of the rest of us should be exempt. If they were interested in being leaders worth a little respect and praise, they would lead by example and sacrifice first, or, at the very fucking least, be willing to join the rest of us in shouldering the load in tough times. Instead, they run for their fainting couches at the merest hint that they might own anyone or any country anything in return for their good fortune. I am not impressed by people who call themselves "job creators" but seem to mean "small gods."
3). "And we look to Democrats and Republicans in government at all levels to put the people before the politics."
I don't have much to add to this one. As jokes go, it was pretty funny.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
Attitude and Gratitude
I am sometimes disheartened when I read something that I was going to write about, like I have just taken too long, and the world couldn't wait, and everything I have to say is already being said by someone else.
Which is probably the wrong way to look at things of course.
Now I try to see all the people talking about the topics I'm interested in as validation and opportunity to engage and saving me some time. Yes there's still a lot of bullshit in the world, but I think we do live in an exciting and eventful era with a lot of interesting new ideas and rediscoveries of old ones. The times they are a changin' and we are in the thick of it. There's nothing disheartening in that.
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
2013: The Year We . . .
In the spirit of 2010: The Year We Make Contact (one of my favorite movies, adapted from one of my favorite novels by one of my favorite authors), I peer into my quantum split-screen and strain possible tag lines for 2013 from the flotsam and jetsam of probability space.
2013: The Year We
2013: The Year We
- Fix Everything
- Fix Nothing
- Get Naked
- Lose Language
- Find Jesus
- Lose Jesus at the Outlet Mall
- are Found
- are Lost
- Have a Pretty Idea of Where We Are, but Are Too Embarrassed to Ask
- Never Stop
- Never Start
- Brush Better
- File Paperwork
- Buy More Things
- Uncover Conspiracies
- Find Enlightenment
- Pull Back the Curtain
- Float Away into Space
- Live Underground
- Send Text Messages by Kite
- Only Drive Backwards
- Stop Being Shitty to Each Other
- Decide to See What Being a Little More Shitty to Each Other Would Feel Like
- Evaporate
- Condense
- Discover the Present
- Find the Future
- Lose Ourselves in the Past
- Crack the Planet
- Find the Wormhole
- Discover the Terrifying Secret of Cheese
- Trip the Light Fantastic
- Realize it was All Just a Dream
- Flail Helplessly About
- Finally Crown Nicholas Cage our Rightful King
- Find Hidden Truth
- Realize No One Cares
- Start to Give a Shit
- Finally say, "Fuck It."
- Fart without Fear
- Enjoy What We Have
- Want Even More
- Make Contact and It's Scary
- Make Contact and It's SO BORING
- Learn How to Fly
- Don't Stop Believing
- Realize Argument by Picture Meme is Ineffective and Childish
- Mediate More
- Go Too Far Down the Rabbit Hole of Our Own Minds
- Realize Everything is Fucked Up and Bullshit
- Go Door to Door Selling People More Shit They Don't Want or Need
- Just Vote the Entire Government Out
- Sit Back and Just Watch Things Disintegrate
- Try to Be Better
- Give Up
- Can't Shut Up
- Don't Speak Much More than a Whisper
- Go Crazy
- Realize We've Been the Only Sane Ones All Along
- Discover the Secret To Consciousness
- Discover The Equation that Describes Everything
- Drop the Ball
- Drop the Other for a Matching Pair
- Leak Everywhere
- Use the Force
- Grow Wings
- Breathe Deeply
- Discover the Perfect Philosophy for Life, the Universe and Everything
- Kill the One Guy Who Can Fix Everything Before We Give Him a Chance to Speak
- Believe Every Goddamn Thing We Hear
- Believe Nothing Except from Behind a Double Blind
- Stop Letting Other People Tell Us Who We Are
- Give Much More Than We Take
- Take Much More Than We Need
- Perfect Our Trajectory
- Are Translated
- Are Lost in Translation
- Stop Being Afraid
- Can't Leave the House
- Find the Happy Medium
- Lose the Tormented Psychic
- Eat Lest We Be Eaten
- Decide to Grow the Fuck Up
- Wallow in Endless Nostalgia
- Fall Down
- Skin Our Knees
- Pick Ourselves Up
- Pull the Other Down
- Decide Self-Help is Bullshit
- Eat Too Much Garlic
- Walk Both Ways Up Hill
- Spin Around Until We Throw Up
- Make Peace With the Hipsters
- Declare War on Wars
- Lose the Plot
- Find the Thread
- Have Enough of Our Excuses and Bullshit
- Hold Hands
- Decide to Be Kind, Because Why Not?
There's a universe of possibility out there. I am looking for the best one. I'll let you know if I find it. Until then, may the universe you resolve from the possible to the observed be the one that makes you happy.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
New book review
New review for Justin Robinson's book, Dollmaker. Short version: Disturbing, but I liked it.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Nothing is Ever Simple
I guess I need to process a few more thoughts on Newtown and guns.
What do you do with a country where gun sales spike immediately after the election of a democratic president? And then again upon his re-election? After little to no commentary on his part, in either campaign, regarding guns? His sole accomplishment in his first term being a slight increase in the amount of places gun-owners can conceal carry guns? They've been told over and over by Trusted Sources that Obama, and the U.N. and whoever else is coming for their guns, lack of evidence stronger than hearsay not withstanding. What do you do with a subset of your population furiously stocking guns like it's the end of the world? And then occasionally going nutso and going on a shooting spree when the drumbeat of fear grows too big to handle? What do you do with that?
I'm not sure. I absolutely reject the NRA's assertion that we must simply throw more guns at the problem. It's the classic problem where, if you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The gun is a tool. It's good at killing animals and humans. That's all it does. It's too simple to declare the gun is the only solution to our discontent, because it assumes we have no other tools in our toolbox. Also, we really have become a nation of such gullible marks that we can't see the obvious scam in gun salesmen, and the lobby representing them, selling guns to both sides of a conflict? They sell them to the disturbed and then turning to the rest of us and saying, "Hey, you really need a gun to protect yourself from those crazies." Their goal is not your safety. Their goal is to make a ridiculous amount of money playing on your fears to sell you tools most of us don't need. You should listen to them with all the credibility you give a car salesman telling you this Porche is just what you need to improve your sex life.
Having said that, I'm not remotely convinced it's ethical, moral or remotely pragmatic to try and get rid of the 40 million guns in this country. For one, availability of guns is clearly not the only issue involved in our gun violence. Places like Idaho have fairly lenient gun cultures and open-carry laws, and don't have a lot of violent shootings. But there's a wide range of options in between "giving everyone a firearm and hoping no one's feeling like picking a gunfight today" and "taking away all guns forever and throwing them into the sun." What frustrates me about this, and most other debates today is we are told by extremists over and over that there is no room to maneuver in between the polar opposites of every issue. That every action we take will inevitably ride the slippery slope to the furthest extreme. And it isn't true. It's obviously not true. We should stop listening to the people who try to make us afraid enough to forget ourselves and believe it's true.
Yes, the 2nd amendment exists. But constitutional literalism has roughly the same problem as biblical literalism, in that if you insist on reading a document devoid of context and without interest in the principle behind the rule you're reading, you run the severe risk of missing the whole damn point. In a time of inaccurate, slow-loading firearms the constitution allowed for a well-regulated local militia and the right to keep firearms in your home. At the time, this was a pretty good way to ensure the federal government would face an armed and angry populace should it ever become as tyrannical as good old King George. The last and only time a portion of our populace tried this, we killed each other in staggering numbers. In my opinion, our option to effectively rise up as a populace ended roughly around the time the federal government developed tanks, airplanes, laser-guided drones, biological and chemical weapons, atomic bombs, space-based spy satellites, counter-insurgency tactics, armored SWAT and the ability to eavesdrop on your cell phones and emails. So embrace the existential suck of that notion, because like your inevitable death you can't get around it. And not to embrace worship of the founding fathers, but I'm guessing they were counting on us being capable of reconsidering the 2nd amendment in a prudent and intelligent manner, in light of a world with vastly more apocalyptic weaponry and tactical realities. And if you're interested in retaining the principle of the 2nd amendment, then a regulated and well-armed militia will also need to include weapons more advanced than a semi-automatic rifles. Because your collection of pop guns is not going to take down the federal government. If you have any further questions on that score, please ask any members of the Branch Davidian cult that might have survived Waco.
Regarding the right to defend yourself and your family via firearms, I think the arguments are stronger. I think people probably have the right to some kind of gun to defend their homes, although I don't think those need to be anywhere near military quality. I don't have a problem with people shooting at gun ranges. I don't have a problem with people hunting. I do have a problem with paranoid and unstable people stockpiling weapons like the world is about to end, or like they have absolutely NO confidence in our police or military to protect us. As far as I'm aware, that was, in fact, the point of creating a standing army and a citizen police force, yes? And if shootings are so rare that they don't need to be legislated for, then they certainly don't necessitate every citizen acquiring a defensive arsenal. I'm not sure what the best method is to re-persuade the citizenry to trust in law an order again, but it seems there are, again, a wide range of options to try well before we get to "fuck it, civilization failed. Buy a gun and jump at shadows for the rest of your life." Maybe, before sending the entire population running for body armor, hollow-point bullets and A-team seminars on how to build your own tank, we could try, I don't know, something rational like modifying existing police practice and organization to better meet civilian needs.
But to some, it IS a jungle out there. There are bad men with guns, and, so the saying goes, only a gun can stop a gun. Right? Well, except for Jared Loughner, who was tackled by unarmed citizens while he was reloading. And about 20 other stories I found from googling "tackled gunman." Not to mention the British Police force, who overwhelmingly prefer to remain unarmed even though one of their officers is occasionally shot. If only a gun can stop a gun, why would an entire country's police force refuse to carry them, even when confronted with the possibility of armed criminals? Why does the military prefer to keep soldiers unarmed when they're not on active duty and assign military police to keeping the peace? Shouldn't having them tote their guns around off-duty fix it? Is it possible there are more and potentially better solutions than the ones we limit ourselves to? I'm not saying we don't want our police to carry guns over here, and I acknowledge the U.S. faces different problems in it's criminals. But I do want to point out, there are other options in policing gun violence than simply arming everyone involved. In Chicago, the CeaseFire group uses ex-gang members or families of gang members to talk to gangs, and defuse potentially violent situations. Notably, they do this without arming rival gangs, intimidating them with weaponry or making them more afraid. Again, we need to reject people who try to narrow our options to solutions convenient for their bottom line or that soothe their fears with false security.
One thing I didn't see in Newtown was a bunch of civilians running around with guns drawn looking for the shooter. Why would we want that in any case? Would it have made the police's job any easier to arrive on the scene and have to figure out which of twenty people with guns drawn is the bad guy? Isn't there a reason we give cops a badge and a uniform? Isn't it to distinguish "the people we have paid to train in the use of guns, negotiation and crisis management to protect us" from "some crazy asshole with a gun?" If you want to be a hero in this society, doesn't it take a bit more than just owning a gun and bragging about how you'd use it to shoot a bad guy if you saw one? Don't we aspire to have the men in our society embody values more nuanced than that of Ralphie from "A Christmas Story?" Shouldn't it be understood that being a hero in this society embodies something more than just holding a gun self-importantly? Isn't Ralphie eventually supposed to learn that more important than a willingness to kill if necessary, is preserving the peace, even if that requires considerably more bravery and risk than firing a gun? Don't we value the risk of peace more than the certainty of violence? Aren't we aspiring to a society somewhat more stable than "might makes right?" Did NO ONE fucking read To Kill a Mockingbird and notice the example of Atticus Finch?
I honestly don't think we want a society where every argument ends in a spoken or unspoken, "watch what you say, I've got a gun." And I think gang violence and police shooting teach us that knowing the other person has a gun is not the deciding factor in whether they get shot at. And that having a gun is not the same thing as being safe. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Nor is there any evidence that the problem is TV and video games. But since I don't think being surrounded by lethally armed citizens is an environment in which people feel free to speak their minds, and since it seems demonstrably foolish to try and pretend the violence that's been in our fiction for thousands of years is suddenly the cause people killing each other, I don't think we need to abridge freedoms granted in the first amendment simply because some paranoid people interpret the 2nd amendment as a right to carry any kind of gun for any reason, a position Justice Scalia happens to agree with.
But I do think we have a problem. One that is steadily getting better over time, but still worse in areas where there are more guns than not. I don't think the level of violence requires panic or fear or a complete abandonment of the idea of a civil society, policed by men we train for that job. Nor do I think it requires we try to remove every kind of gun from civilian society. But I think we can do more than the nothing we currently accomplish on gun violence. I think we can stop listening to the people who are telling us it's the end of the world, that our death is just around the corner, that we can't talk to people who scare or offend us, that security is as simple as holding a gun, or making a prohibition law and that we have no more than two extreme options at any given time. I think we can ask more of our leaders than a lust for retaining power. I think we can ask for more of our heroes than just a willingness to kill. I think we can read and rewrite and re-interpret our constitution in ways that reflect modern realities better, while remaining true to the principles behind them. I think we can try, assess and effectively manage the solutions to our problems regardless of who is in charge. And I'm pretty sure we can come to a more interesting and effective solution than "more guns." I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet the second amendment shouldn't be read as a suicide pact.
What do you do with a country where gun sales spike immediately after the election of a democratic president? And then again upon his re-election? After little to no commentary on his part, in either campaign, regarding guns? His sole accomplishment in his first term being a slight increase in the amount of places gun-owners can conceal carry guns? They've been told over and over by Trusted Sources that Obama, and the U.N. and whoever else is coming for their guns, lack of evidence stronger than hearsay not withstanding. What do you do with a subset of your population furiously stocking guns like it's the end of the world? And then occasionally going nutso and going on a shooting spree when the drumbeat of fear grows too big to handle? What do you do with that?
I'm not sure. I absolutely reject the NRA's assertion that we must simply throw more guns at the problem. It's the classic problem where, if you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. The gun is a tool. It's good at killing animals and humans. That's all it does. It's too simple to declare the gun is the only solution to our discontent, because it assumes we have no other tools in our toolbox. Also, we really have become a nation of such gullible marks that we can't see the obvious scam in gun salesmen, and the lobby representing them, selling guns to both sides of a conflict? They sell them to the disturbed and then turning to the rest of us and saying, "Hey, you really need a gun to protect yourself from those crazies." Their goal is not your safety. Their goal is to make a ridiculous amount of money playing on your fears to sell you tools most of us don't need. You should listen to them with all the credibility you give a car salesman telling you this Porche is just what you need to improve your sex life.
Having said that, I'm not remotely convinced it's ethical, moral or remotely pragmatic to try and get rid of the 40 million guns in this country. For one, availability of guns is clearly not the only issue involved in our gun violence. Places like Idaho have fairly lenient gun cultures and open-carry laws, and don't have a lot of violent shootings. But there's a wide range of options in between "giving everyone a firearm and hoping no one's feeling like picking a gunfight today" and "taking away all guns forever and throwing them into the sun." What frustrates me about this, and most other debates today is we are told by extremists over and over that there is no room to maneuver in between the polar opposites of every issue. That every action we take will inevitably ride the slippery slope to the furthest extreme. And it isn't true. It's obviously not true. We should stop listening to the people who try to make us afraid enough to forget ourselves and believe it's true.
Yes, the 2nd amendment exists. But constitutional literalism has roughly the same problem as biblical literalism, in that if you insist on reading a document devoid of context and without interest in the principle behind the rule you're reading, you run the severe risk of missing the whole damn point. In a time of inaccurate, slow-loading firearms the constitution allowed for a well-regulated local militia and the right to keep firearms in your home. At the time, this was a pretty good way to ensure the federal government would face an armed and angry populace should it ever become as tyrannical as good old King George. The last and only time a portion of our populace tried this, we killed each other in staggering numbers. In my opinion, our option to effectively rise up as a populace ended roughly around the time the federal government developed tanks, airplanes, laser-guided drones, biological and chemical weapons, atomic bombs, space-based spy satellites, counter-insurgency tactics, armored SWAT and the ability to eavesdrop on your cell phones and emails. So embrace the existential suck of that notion, because like your inevitable death you can't get around it. And not to embrace worship of the founding fathers, but I'm guessing they were counting on us being capable of reconsidering the 2nd amendment in a prudent and intelligent manner, in light of a world with vastly more apocalyptic weaponry and tactical realities. And if you're interested in retaining the principle of the 2nd amendment, then a regulated and well-armed militia will also need to include weapons more advanced than a semi-automatic rifles. Because your collection of pop guns is not going to take down the federal government. If you have any further questions on that score, please ask any members of the Branch Davidian cult that might have survived Waco.
Regarding the right to defend yourself and your family via firearms, I think the arguments are stronger. I think people probably have the right to some kind of gun to defend their homes, although I don't think those need to be anywhere near military quality. I don't have a problem with people shooting at gun ranges. I don't have a problem with people hunting. I do have a problem with paranoid and unstable people stockpiling weapons like the world is about to end, or like they have absolutely NO confidence in our police or military to protect us. As far as I'm aware, that was, in fact, the point of creating a standing army and a citizen police force, yes? And if shootings are so rare that they don't need to be legislated for, then they certainly don't necessitate every citizen acquiring a defensive arsenal. I'm not sure what the best method is to re-persuade the citizenry to trust in law an order again, but it seems there are, again, a wide range of options to try well before we get to "fuck it, civilization failed. Buy a gun and jump at shadows for the rest of your life." Maybe, before sending the entire population running for body armor, hollow-point bullets and A-team seminars on how to build your own tank, we could try, I don't know, something rational like modifying existing police practice and organization to better meet civilian needs.
But to some, it IS a jungle out there. There are bad men with guns, and, so the saying goes, only a gun can stop a gun. Right? Well, except for Jared Loughner, who was tackled by unarmed citizens while he was reloading. And about 20 other stories I found from googling "tackled gunman." Not to mention the British Police force, who overwhelmingly prefer to remain unarmed even though one of their officers is occasionally shot. If only a gun can stop a gun, why would an entire country's police force refuse to carry them, even when confronted with the possibility of armed criminals? Why does the military prefer to keep soldiers unarmed when they're not on active duty and assign military police to keeping the peace? Shouldn't having them tote their guns around off-duty fix it? Is it possible there are more and potentially better solutions than the ones we limit ourselves to? I'm not saying we don't want our police to carry guns over here, and I acknowledge the U.S. faces different problems in it's criminals. But I do want to point out, there are other options in policing gun violence than simply arming everyone involved. In Chicago, the CeaseFire group uses ex-gang members or families of gang members to talk to gangs, and defuse potentially violent situations. Notably, they do this without arming rival gangs, intimidating them with weaponry or making them more afraid. Again, we need to reject people who try to narrow our options to solutions convenient for their bottom line or that soothe their fears with false security.
One thing I didn't see in Newtown was a bunch of civilians running around with guns drawn looking for the shooter. Why would we want that in any case? Would it have made the police's job any easier to arrive on the scene and have to figure out which of twenty people with guns drawn is the bad guy? Isn't there a reason we give cops a badge and a uniform? Isn't it to distinguish "the people we have paid to train in the use of guns, negotiation and crisis management to protect us" from "some crazy asshole with a gun?" If you want to be a hero in this society, doesn't it take a bit more than just owning a gun and bragging about how you'd use it to shoot a bad guy if you saw one? Don't we aspire to have the men in our society embody values more nuanced than that of Ralphie from "A Christmas Story?" Shouldn't it be understood that being a hero in this society embodies something more than just holding a gun self-importantly? Isn't Ralphie eventually supposed to learn that more important than a willingness to kill if necessary, is preserving the peace, even if that requires considerably more bravery and risk than firing a gun? Don't we value the risk of peace more than the certainty of violence? Aren't we aspiring to a society somewhat more stable than "might makes right?" Did NO ONE fucking read To Kill a Mockingbird and notice the example of Atticus Finch?
I honestly don't think we want a society where every argument ends in a spoken or unspoken, "watch what you say, I've got a gun." And I think gang violence and police shooting teach us that knowing the other person has a gun is not the deciding factor in whether they get shot at. And that having a gun is not the same thing as being safe. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary. Nor is there any evidence that the problem is TV and video games. But since I don't think being surrounded by lethally armed citizens is an environment in which people feel free to speak their minds, and since it seems demonstrably foolish to try and pretend the violence that's been in our fiction for thousands of years is suddenly the cause people killing each other, I don't think we need to abridge freedoms granted in the first amendment simply because some paranoid people interpret the 2nd amendment as a right to carry any kind of gun for any reason, a position Justice Scalia happens to agree with.
But I do think we have a problem. One that is steadily getting better over time, but still worse in areas where there are more guns than not. I don't think the level of violence requires panic or fear or a complete abandonment of the idea of a civil society, policed by men we train for that job. Nor do I think it requires we try to remove every kind of gun from civilian society. But I think we can do more than the nothing we currently accomplish on gun violence. I think we can stop listening to the people who are telling us it's the end of the world, that our death is just around the corner, that we can't talk to people who scare or offend us, that security is as simple as holding a gun, or making a prohibition law and that we have no more than two extreme options at any given time. I think we can ask more of our leaders than a lust for retaining power. I think we can ask for more of our heroes than just a willingness to kill. I think we can read and rewrite and re-interpret our constitution in ways that reflect modern realities better, while remaining true to the principles behind them. I think we can try, assess and effectively manage the solutions to our problems regardless of who is in charge. And I'm pretty sure we can come to a more interesting and effective solution than "more guns." I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet the second amendment shouldn't be read as a suicide pact.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
What I really saw last Friday
I didn't react very well to the shooting last Friday, like most people. Initially, I was overwhelmed both by the idea that there are a lot of disturbed, angry men in our society with little perceived space to process their shit in a healthy manner, access to a wide variety of easily available guns, and nothing to stop them, really, from shooting up a mall or a school or a park or whatever. And when they inevitably do, we're faced with a chorus of gun-stroking fetishists, who insist that the best way to deal with this kind of tragedy, is to abandon the idea of a civil, civic society, and instead arm each individual and to train them to view every social encounter as a potential shooting situation. I don't like that idea. I find the lack of faith in the idea of a civil society disturbing. It's depressing that the gun strokers and an army of lawyers have locked down the debate to such a degree that it's considered out of form to even contemplate any sort of reasonable gun restriction. The fact that "sell more guns to everyone" is an extremely convenient position coming from the lobbyists of gun sellers and gun lovers seems to float right on by the outside of the debate.
But that's not what I really want to talk about today. Yes, we saw one disturbed maniac take the lives of innocent kids Friday. We also saw two women charge a man holding an assault rifle, because of their love for their kids, their professionalism, their sense of duty and a willingness to sacrifice anything for the kids in their care. We saw a woman hide her class in closets and lie convincingly to a maniac with a gun in her face to protect her children before being shot herself. We saw teachers hiding with their children in closets and bathrooms, telling them they loved them, that it was going to be okay just in case those were the last words they ever heard. Even trying to keep them distracted and protected from even the psychological damage of the situation though they were terrified themselves. We saw an entire community rushing to the scene to help and protect their loved ones, even if they didn't know how, even though it made the scene chaotic. There was one maniac at that school Friday. And he was outnumbered, by a wide margin, by a community that ran towards danger, that chose bravery, self-sacrifice and love over their own selves. That's who we are. Not one angry, bloodthirsty maniac. Not gun-toting psychos. When you feel like despairing, in bemoaning what the world is coming to, remember the people who gave everything, and the rest of the community that would have done the same, not the one bastard who couldn't manage his shit.
Yes, we saw the worst in human nature in one man last Friday. We also saw the best in human nature, in far greater measure, from everyone else around him. I think that's what we should remember. Mourn those poor kids. Debate sensible gun legislation and security at schools. But don't let one paranoid gun nut turn us from people who choose, love, kindness, compassion, self-sacrifice and community into paranoid gun nuts who have such a dim view of human nature that we view every social interaction as a potential massacre and bring a gun to every argument. We get to decide what kind of society we want to fight for. Let's make it the one embodied by those six women, not the one embodied by that poor, paranoid coward.
But that's not what I really want to talk about today. Yes, we saw one disturbed maniac take the lives of innocent kids Friday. We also saw two women charge a man holding an assault rifle, because of their love for their kids, their professionalism, their sense of duty and a willingness to sacrifice anything for the kids in their care. We saw a woman hide her class in closets and lie convincingly to a maniac with a gun in her face to protect her children before being shot herself. We saw teachers hiding with their children in closets and bathrooms, telling them they loved them, that it was going to be okay just in case those were the last words they ever heard. Even trying to keep them distracted and protected from even the psychological damage of the situation though they were terrified themselves. We saw an entire community rushing to the scene to help and protect their loved ones, even if they didn't know how, even though it made the scene chaotic. There was one maniac at that school Friday. And he was outnumbered, by a wide margin, by a community that ran towards danger, that chose bravery, self-sacrifice and love over their own selves. That's who we are. Not one angry, bloodthirsty maniac. Not gun-toting psychos. When you feel like despairing, in bemoaning what the world is coming to, remember the people who gave everything, and the rest of the community that would have done the same, not the one bastard who couldn't manage his shit.
Yes, we saw the worst in human nature in one man last Friday. We also saw the best in human nature, in far greater measure, from everyone else around him. I think that's what we should remember. Mourn those poor kids. Debate sensible gun legislation and security at schools. But don't let one paranoid gun nut turn us from people who choose, love, kindness, compassion, self-sacrifice and community into paranoid gun nuts who have such a dim view of human nature that we view every social interaction as a potential massacre and bring a gun to every argument. We get to decide what kind of society we want to fight for. Let's make it the one embodied by those six women, not the one embodied by that poor, paranoid coward.
Friday, December 14, 2012
caveat
The below is just me processing the bullshit that went on today. I'm not sure it amounts to much. I can posture all I want, but I'm not sure how to actually change anything. I wish I could do more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)