Hey, dear readers! To make up for my 3-month absence, I'm sharing a video...
[transcript soon... and stay tuned for part 2... yes, there's a part 2...]
Somebody Get Ms. Prejean a Crown of Thorns, For Christ's Sake!
Two Brothers, Two States
3 hours ago
Showing newest posts with label teh youtubes. Show older posts
Showing newest posts with label teh youtubes. Show older posts
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
I'm Not Saying That Steven Crowder Condones Racism... [New Youtube Video]
I've mentioned Steven Crowder here before. He's... well, this is how I usually put it: "Steven Crowder, budding conservative pundit/'comedian,' ostensible journalist, professional-troll-in-the-making, and all-around closet-case..." (just kidding about the "closet-case" part... he has a girlfriend. No, really! He told me himself! And we all know that every guy who has a girlfriend is totally, completely, 100% straight, right? Yeah... anyway...) I just caught him, let's say, not being very careful about the comments on his videos or his replies to them. Keep in mind, I'm always very [but reasonably] cautious about accusing people of racism, and I'm not accusing him of racism here. I'm not even accusing him of condoning racism, but... that's not the only thing going on here. But let me be clear in stating that I unequivocally condemn any hate directed at anyone, including [especially] people who are guilty of it themselves. I'm pretty sure I'll make an in-depth, follow-up blog/video on this issue soon.
Video: "Does Steven Crowder Condone Racism?"
[contents of description bar below for those of you who'd rather not click your mouse more times than absolutely necessary]
IMPORTANT: I do not hate Steven Crowder. I have no ill will toward him. I give no indication of that anywhere in this video. Please do not use this video as "justification" for threatening him or his family, friends, associates, or anyone else he might care about!
Update: Any questions about authenticity should be cleared up by the fact that Steven Crowder admitted that this video and the screenshot were authentic. Also, Steven asked me to take down the video. He confronted me about it on facebook chat. Without giving me enough time to consider, and because I'm such a nice guy, I indicated that I would remove the video, or at least wasn't going to keep it up permanently, because this question isn't even relevant to whether or not Steven Crowder is an accurate reporter, a demagogue, a liar, or anything else. But after conferring with others more experienced than myself, I've realized that this isn't just between him and me. For his part, he claims that he wasn't paying attention well enough and didn't see the racist parts of homertalk's comment. (Ron Paul Newsletter, anyone?) I would grant him that I see his case as highly plausible. I mean, it's difficult to comprehend the monumental stupidity that would have been required for him to have done this *intentionally.* But even assuming he's telling the truth, you could still say, "That's what you get for being the kind of act that racists happen to like," or "You made your bed, now sleep in it." It's even possible that this could be a distraction from "the real issues." But I'm pretty sure he still doesn't get it... you know... what the "real" issues are... one who asks for compassion and fairness when he seems to have such trouble showing it himself...
Steven Crowder's video
We already know Steven Crowder doesn't really care too much about facts or objectivity...
Steven Crowder video comments pages (the comment in question should be on the last or next to last page. As of 8:09 pm GMT, 22 December, 2009 Steven has deleted his own comment but not homertalk's)
Screen capture
Audra Shay
Orygyn's video
Obviously, the word "nigger" can mean different things in different contexts. Homertalk was obviously using the word as a slur. I'm not saying that Steven Crowder *noticed* the use of that slur or the slur right after it... [in fact, I, personally, would say it's most likely that he didn't]. I'm just putting this out there as a public service.
On a final note, again, I'd like to point out that even if Steven Crowder does condone racism, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not his reporting is factual. Those are two distinct questions.
[short link to this post: http://bit.ly/7YsXPA ]
Video: "Does Steven Crowder Condone Racism?"
[contents of description bar below for those of you who'd rather not click your mouse more times than absolutely necessary]
IMPORTANT: I do not hate Steven Crowder. I have no ill will toward him. I give no indication of that anywhere in this video. Please do not use this video as "justification" for threatening him or his family, friends, associates, or anyone else he might care about!
Update: Any questions about authenticity should be cleared up by the fact that Steven Crowder admitted that this video and the screenshot were authentic. Also, Steven asked me to take down the video. He confronted me about it on facebook chat. Without giving me enough time to consider, and because I'm such a nice guy, I indicated that I would remove the video, or at least wasn't going to keep it up permanently, because this question isn't even relevant to whether or not Steven Crowder is an accurate reporter, a demagogue, a liar, or anything else. But after conferring with others more experienced than myself, I've realized that this isn't just between him and me. For his part, he claims that he wasn't paying attention well enough and didn't see the racist parts of homertalk's comment. (Ron Paul Newsletter, anyone?) I would grant him that I see his case as highly plausible. I mean, it's difficult to comprehend the monumental stupidity that would have been required for him to have done this *intentionally.* But even assuming he's telling the truth, you could still say, "That's what you get for being the kind of act that racists happen to like," or "You made your bed, now sleep in it." It's even possible that this could be a distraction from "the real issues." But I'm pretty sure he still doesn't get it... you know... what the "real" issues are... one who asks for compassion and fairness when he seems to have such trouble showing it himself...
Steven Crowder's video
We already know Steven Crowder doesn't really care too much about facts or objectivity...
Steven Crowder video comments pages (the comment in question should be on the last or next to last page. As of 8:09 pm GMT, 22 December, 2009 Steven has deleted his own comment but not homertalk's)
Screen capture
Audra Shay
Orygyn's video
Obviously, the word "nigger" can mean different things in different contexts. Homertalk was obviously using the word as a slur. I'm not saying that Steven Crowder *noticed* the use of that slur or the slur right after it... [in fact, I, personally, would say it's most likely that he didn't]. I'm just putting this out there as a public service.
On a final note, again, I'd like to point out that even if Steven Crowder does condone racism, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not his reporting is factual. Those are two distinct questions.
[short link to this post: http://bit.ly/7YsXPA ]
Sunday, December 20, 2009
TheAmazingAtheist: Braodcastings of Blogtv For Make Benefit Glorious Website of FreeSpeechVids.com
theamazingatheist- Broadcast your self LIVE
Donate to FreeSpeechVids!
Oh... wait... nevermind... don't donate to FreeSpeechVids... sorry! nothing to see here, people! move the fuck along! :-(
Thursday, December 17, 2009
I'm Speechless [New "Infomercial"]
I don't know if you've seen a lot of infomercials lately, but many of the newer ones contain some not-at-all-veiled sexual references. I mean, you can't even call them "double-entendres" anymore! I think this might be the most blatant example I've seen thus far. There's nothing wrong with this, but I guess I'm just used to some level of subtlety. It seems like the current trend in this variety of marketing is to [continually] explore [new frontiers in] how anti-subtle a commercial can become. It's like an arms-race of anti-subtlety! I'm not sure whether or not I think it's funny, though. Maybe I'll get back to you on that...
Seriously: "I need a handjob dot com". Mind-boggling. Not that I don't need a handjob... but I digress.
[h/t: Martin Pribble. thanks! :-D lol.]
EDIT: ok... I think I get this now. This type of product used to be called "as seen on TV," and because the commercials were played on tv, they had to conform to certain FCC standards of propriety, but the standards on teh Interwebz are much looser, so it's not surprising that the manufacturers of these products have since been trying so hard to "see what they can get away with." ...but I'm sure you already had that figured out.
Seriously: "I need a handjob dot com". Mind-boggling. Not that I don't need a handjob... but I digress.
[h/t: Martin Pribble. thanks! :-D lol.]
EDIT: ok... I think I get this now. This type of product used to be called "as seen on TV," and because the commercials were played on tv, they had to conform to certain FCC standards of propriety, but the standards on teh Interwebz are much looser, so it's not surprising that the manufacturers of these products have since been trying so hard to "see what they can get away with." ...but I'm sure you already had that figured out.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
New YouTube Video: "Thoughts on Slavery and the Bible"
For your convenience, here's the "script" I was loosely working from:
Hey! Adderall Apocalypse here! The other day I was in TogetherForPeace/Jack's blogtv room and one of the things we were talking about was the Bible's stance on slavery. Basically, what he was saying was that the Bible (NT) does provide a basis for the abolition of slavery. But he says that the New Testament writers who talked about slavery weren't very concerned with the political activism; they weren’t very concerned with telling the governments of that time that slavery was wrong and they should abolish the practice. They were more concerned with "freeing peoples' spirits." Well, first of all, I don't believe that people have "spirits" the way Jack believes that we do. Secondly, it doesn't really make sense... if God exists and is all-powerful, I would think he’d be able to free slaves, but instead, all he decided to do was, what, make them feel better, in effect? I think that if I was a slave, I’d rather be not a slave than just be made to feel like Jesus loves me or whatever, but that’s just my perspective... what do I know?
So it seems fairly clear that if God exists, he cares a lot more about "cosmic justice" than actual justice here on earth. Obviously, I don’t believe in God or "cosmic justice." I suppose it makes sense that if God and the afterlife is eternal, this life would be less significant—but don’t you see how logically unworkable this is? That God created an entire universe so that 13.7 billion years later, he could insert souls into some monkeys living on a rock in the middle of nowhere so they could live for 70 years, if that, and then, afterwards, face eternal judgment? And then either be with him forever or be tormented forever for their so-called sins? Isn’t it obvious that the afterlife is an idea people made up to combat their fear of death!?
(anyway)
Another thing he said (and I find that a lot of Christians think this) was that the abolitionist movement was largely Christian; [and] they were inspired to become abolitionists largely because of the Bible. But I think that almost everyone back then was a Christian, right? So there were just as many people who were pro-slavery who could use the Bible as justification for owning slaves as there were who were using the Bible to support their opposition to slavery. So I think it would be more instructive to look at the effects of the enlightenment on the views of the people back then regarding slavery because that was an important period of time for the development of the concept of rights. Now, I don't necessarily believe in "rights," but that's a completely different video. The point is that you're not going to see rights being mentioned or discussed anywhere in the Bible. What you'll see in the Bible is, for example, "THOU SHALT NOT STEAL," because God said so, but the real reason for the law against stealing in the Bible is that it’s disruptive to a society, especially above certain levels. This should be obvious to you. So that's as far as the Bible goes: "don't steal." Maybe from that, you could extrapolate that if you can't steal another person's property then maybe a person has a right to their own property, and you can go from there, and I suppose you could do the same with other "rights" like life and liberty, but it seems to contradict the idea that God is the one who wrote the book when, (I’d assume that) he knew all that stuff, but we had to figure it out for ourselves. It’s almost like we didn’t need God or the Bible to come up with those ideas. I would, of course, suggest that this is the case. [links on what the Bible has to say that could be interpreted as being relevant to the issue of slavery]:
Does God approve of slavery?
What the Bible says about slavery
The infamous religioustolerance.org page on slavery in the Bible
You’ll notice that you can use parts of the Bible to argue either way. You might be tempted to say that this is a paradox. But as I’ve said in my blog, I have proposed that there is no paradox, only contradiction. We can argue about that later, I’m sure...
My point is the main verse that Jack was emphasizing in his blogtv room says that in the kingdom of God "there is neither slave nor free, male nor female," etc., so from that verse, the next logical step is that we are all equal in the eyes of God, and the next logical step FROM THAT would be that slavery is wrong. Ok. Fair enough. I would think that if God really were against slavery, he would have just come right out and said it, but we can go with your explanation... but if slavery is wrong and the Bible is opposed to slavery, it just seems unfortunate that nobody figured that out until 1700 years after the Bible was written.
That reminds me: another thing people like to say is that there are absolute moral laws and, therefore, there must be a moral law giver, and that moral law giver is God. But if you look at history, you’ll see that culture dictates morality, not the other way around (not that I necessarily believe in morality, but again, different video). The system of morality in the Old Testament, for example, says that eating shellfish is an abomination (The NIV says, "you are to detest" shellfish, but whatever). But then, later on, some other people came along and tried to figure out what Old Testament laws they were still supposed to follow and which they could ignore. They split them up into three different categories: moral, civil, and ceremonial laws, but just from reading the Bible, how can you tell that there needs to be three different categories? There doesn't seem to me [to be] any obvious way to distinguish between them. But even if there were, it still seems inconsistent. Did God change his mind? Does he do that? I thought he was perfect, right? Again, you can find parts of the Bible to support either side of that argument. [links]:
Does God Repent?
"does god change his mind?"
Thanks for [reading]...
Saturday, December 5, 2009
"What's Wrong With Me!?"
Hello, readers! If you follow my twitter or youtube activity, you'd know I'm majorly addicted to the "fringeelements"1 (real name: Ryan Faulk, I guess) channel on youtube. For those of you who are unfamiliar with his work, I'll provide some background. He could be classified as an anarchist, but it would be more accurate to say (and he says this himself) that he supports an "emergent" government. I'm a lover of ideas. I want to hear as wide a variety of ideas and viewpoints as I can. It doesn't matter how "out there" they are as long as they're not ideas that I've heard before and have seen enough relevant evidence to conclude that they're stupid/wrong. So I don't necessarily agree with everything Ryan says,2 but a lot of what he says is new to me (relatively, at least). However, a lot of other people on youtube (TheAmazingAtheist, Thunderf00t, HowTheWorldWorks, etc...) don't seem to like what Ryan has to say or they casually dismiss him or whatever. Anyway... because of this, I've been asking certain people who are critical of Ryan, "what's wrong with me?" Here's the exchange that occurred when I asked this of twitter/blog "friend" JohnJ (who I believe agrees with Ryan about a lot of things, although I'm not sure). I've found that a major source of disagreement I usually have with John is that he seems to be culturally conservative, whereas I'm basically culturally "liberal," I guess. No, wait. That's not a very meaningful way of putting it. (Not to sound condescending, but) what I really mean is that I prefer solutions to social problems based on evidence rather than tradition and that although I recognize the importance of individual/personal responsibility, I also realize that there are a lot of things that are beyond the control of the individual.3 Anyway... without further ado, here's the transcript of our "conversation":
Ok. Still there, boys and girls? Was that intense, or what!? I don't even have to respond to most of John's "statements" in this exchange as, like I said, [many of them] were rather obvious and blatant mischaracterizations. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trying to have fun or make a point or something. Another explanation is that he might have been slightly upset at a comment I made on a video by conservative, um, "comedian," Steven Crowder,4 in which he propagated the myth that the peace symbol was a representation of the Apostle Peter hanging from an upside-down cross (not to mention the myth that Peter was actually hung on an upside-down cross... or the myth that there was an Apostle Peter, but, anyway, "that's neither here nor there"...). One thing I said in my comment was, "This video wasn't so bad until you went full-throttle with the Christian Persecution Complex bullshit." Oops! I don't know. That might have hit a nerve. But I was quick to clarify what I meant by that when given the opportunity! In any event, I'm going to try not to think that he really sincerely [literally] believes what he was saying about me. That would just be too ridiculous.
Thanks for reading! Happy trials! Especially, have a good time really trying to understand the positions of people you have discussions with! ;-D
1He used to make videos as "confederalsocialist," but that account was suspended, for some reason. So, file another one in the "fuckyoutube" section!
2This is, of course, not even that important! Can we as a society please get over the idea that "I like you" means "I agree with you" or "I agree with you" means "you're smart"? For example, I usually find twitter/blog "friend" JohnJ, who I will bring up again later on in this post, personable, and think he's probably smart in a lot of areas, even though I'm sure I disagree with him well over half of the time. I think, if there are any significant conflicts between us, it might be over our views of science, which is important, but I think that's something we can work on. Of course, regarding Ryan, something that might be a major caveat is that he was at one point, unfortunately, a "white nationalist," or at least claimed to be one. But I think that he can be forgiven for that because he has since renounced white nationalism, and explained his reasoning behind doing so to my satisfaction, at least. As I said in an earlier blog, I don't like to jump to conclusions that people are racist. For example, I wouldn't assume that John is racist just because of the baggage of the loaded wording of the title of his blog: "A Johnny Reb in a Yankee World [Subtitle: Bearing Witness To The End OfAmerica
3Oh, well excuse the fuck out of me for trying to have a little fun at the expense of fairness. I hope I'm not offending anyone reading this and I'm certainly not directing this at John himself, but you have to realize that one of the dangers of playing at the beach is that you risk getting sand in your vagina. So my characterization of John here was unfair. At least I'm doing him the service of admitting it now and attempting to explain his actual position: I'm sure John would say that he's very much a proponent of pragmatic, evidence-based solutions to social problems. He merely happens to believe (on faith, no less! *gasp*!) that more freedom is always the best way to solve problems (although that might be an over-simplification). I would tend to agree, but one area of contention might be in regards to what "more freedom" actually means. Then there's the complicating factor of "conflicting freedoms," which I don't even want to get into right now. What I gather from what he's written on the topic is that what John actually believes about tradition is that a practice or belief or policy becomes tradition because it has "stood the test of time" and "works" in some way, in the pragmatic sense of the word. I would say that what I believe about tradition is exemplified in "Weird Al" Yankovic's brilliant holiday jingle, "Weasel Stomping Day." Incidentally, as a side note, I would also say that what I believe about social norms is exemplified in the Twilight Zone episode, "Eye of the Beholder."
4I'm not going to provide a link to this video. You can find it yourself if you care so much. I don't care if you think Steven Crowder is funny or whatever. I don't. It's fine with me if you're a fan of his, but I just can't take him seriously... or comedically (right, not a real word, I know). A lot of humor has to do with making accurate observations. Hence the phrase, "it's funny 'cause it's true." It's hard for me to laugh at a guy's jokes who I believe consistently makes (I'll be nice here) inaccurate observations. But I was planning on writing more on that later...
AderalApocalyps hey, @johnj2427. I can't stop watching fringeelements (fka confederalsocialist) on youtube. what's wrong with me? lolz...1 day ago from web
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps What's wrong with you? Well, I could start with your blind faith in government to solve all our problems.1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And then there's the tendency to group everyone who doesn't think like you do under one label.1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Also, there's your belief that if something isn't the way you think it should be, it's because people are stupid bigots.1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And there's your arrogant refusal to acknowledge that no one is good enough to rule another without their consent.1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And lest we forget, there's your belief that you know everything and people not as smart as you are idiots.1 day ago from TweetDeck
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 ok... 1st of all (to paraphrase Dara O'Briain), I don't think I know everything. If I did, I would stop...1 day ago from web
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps And how could I forget your insistence that ppl aren't responsible for their choices b/c we're all just chemical reactions?1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Then there's the juvenile tone you adopt when you mock someone because you don't understand them.1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps If you want a more detailed list, it's going to have to wait.1 day ago from TweetDeck
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 um... I'm looking forward to that(?) btw... I'd like to see quotes in your analysis too (in context would be a plus...)1 day ago from web
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps But I really should include your belief that Christians are the only group in history to have never suffered persecution.1 day ago from TweetDeck
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 for the record, that's not what I believe. I believe that right now, in the US, Christian persecution is less common than "avg."1 day ago from web
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps I don't disagree there. In fact, I think I demonstrated that on my blog recently.1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Right now, in the US, Christian persecution is less common than average: http://is.gd/5bIjh1 day ago from TweetDeck
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps But what does that have to do with Peter being crucified on an upside-down cross?1 day ago from TweetDeck
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 um, 1st off, I don't think I claimed it did (2ndly... he wasn't. but I digress...)1 day ago from web
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 idk ur experience growing up, but churches I went 2 put alot of (I'd evn say "excessive") emphasis on James 1:2 & Matt 10:22, etc1 day ago from web
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 did I do/say something wrong? Do I hafta sleep in the doghouse tonight? Can't understand why ur mischaracterizing me like this...1 day ago from web
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Well, you asked. If I made a mistake, I apologize for it and want to correct the record.1 day ago from TweetDeck
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 I mean, let's keep in mind... you were responding to my admission of partiality toward videos made by a guy who's an anarchist!1 day ago from web
JohnJ2427 @AderalApocalyps Oh. I thought you were asking more generally. Silly me.1 day ago from TweetDeck
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 ultimate:-P... anyway, yeah, srsly... I'm addicted... ha-ha-ha...1 day ago from web
AderalApocalyps @johnj2427 just blindsided me... not fair bro... (I'm still a little dazed... but maybe that's because I haven't eaten really...)1 day ago from web
Ok. Still there, boys and girls? Was that intense, or what!? I don't even have to respond to most of John's "statements" in this exchange as, like I said, [many of them] were rather obvious and blatant mischaracterizations. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was trying to have fun or make a point or something. Another explanation is that he might have been slightly upset at a comment I made on a video by conservative, um, "comedian," Steven Crowder,4 in which he propagated the myth that the peace symbol was a representation of the Apostle Peter hanging from an upside-down cross (not to mention the myth that Peter was actually hung on an upside-down cross... or the myth that there was an Apostle Peter, but, anyway, "that's neither here nor there"...). One thing I said in my comment was, "This video wasn't so bad until you went full-throttle with the Christian Persecution Complex bullshit." Oops! I don't know. That might have hit a nerve. But I was quick to clarify what I meant by that when given the opportunity! In any event, I'm going to try not to think that he really sincerely [literally] believes what he was saying about me. That would just be too ridiculous.
Thanks for reading! Happy trials! Especially, have a good time really trying to understand the positions of people you have discussions with! ;-D
1He used to make videos as "confederalsocialist," but that account was suspended, for some reason. So, file another one in the "fuckyoutube" section!
2This is, of course, not even that important! Can we as a society please get over the idea that "I like you" means "I agree with you" or "I agree with you" means "you're smart"? For example, I usually find twitter/blog "friend" JohnJ, who I will bring up again later on in this post, personable, and think he's probably smart in a lot of areas, even though I'm sure I disagree with him well over half of the time. I think, if there are any significant conflicts between us, it might be over our views of science, which is important, but I think that's something we can work on. Of course, regarding Ryan, something that might be a major caveat is that he was at one point, unfortunately, a "white nationalist," or at least claimed to be one. But I think that he can be forgiven for that because he has since renounced white nationalism, and explained his reasoning behind doing so to my satisfaction, at least. As I said in an earlier blog, I don't like to jump to conclusions that people are racist. For example, I wouldn't assume that John is racist just because of the baggage of the loaded wording of the title of his blog: "A Johnny Reb in a Yankee World [Subtitle: Bearing Witness To The End Of
3Oh, well excuse the fuck out of me for trying to have a little fun at the expense of fairness. I hope I'm not offending anyone reading this and I'm certainly not directing this at John himself, but you have to realize that one of the dangers of playing at the beach is that you risk getting sand in your vagina. So my characterization of John here was unfair. At least I'm doing him the service of admitting it now and attempting to explain his actual position: I'm sure John would say that he's very much a proponent of pragmatic, evidence-based solutions to social problems. He merely happens to believe (on faith, no less! *gasp*!) that more freedom is always the best way to solve problems (although that might be an over-simplification). I would tend to agree, but one area of contention might be in regards to what "more freedom" actually means. Then there's the complicating factor of "conflicting freedoms," which I don't even want to get into right now. What I gather from what he's written on the topic is that what John actually believes about tradition is that a practice or belief or policy becomes tradition because it has "stood the test of time" and "works" in some way, in the pragmatic sense of the word. I would say that what I believe about tradition is exemplified in "Weird Al" Yankovic's brilliant holiday jingle, "Weasel Stomping Day." Incidentally, as a side note, I would also say that what I believe about social norms is exemplified in the Twilight Zone episode, "Eye of the Beholder."
4I'm not going to provide a link to this video. You can find it yourself if you care so much. I don't care if you think Steven Crowder is funny or whatever. I don't. It's fine with me if you're a fan of his, but I just can't take him seriously... or comedically (right, not a real word, I know). A lot of humor has to do with making accurate observations. Hence the phrase, "it's funny 'cause it's true." It's hard for me to laugh at a guy's jokes who I believe consistently makes (I'll be nice here) inaccurate observations. But I was planning on writing more on that later...
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The Passion of The Prejean, According to St. Meghan
Hello again, dear readers! It's been a long time since I last blogged. Where have I been? Well, twitter. Yes, *sigh*.
One person I "follow" on twitter is Meghan McCain. I was reading her article in The Daily Beast on Monday regarding conservatives' treatment of her in comparison to Carrie Prejean. There were a few points I wanted to discuss, but couldn't fit into 140 characters. (I have other topics lined up about which to blog, but this one is actually sort of timely!)
Ms. McCain rightly notes the hypocrisy of those who defend conservatives who are guilty of actions for which they would condemn everyone else (of course, I would say that the same goes for all other political/ideological groups). Speaking of this, two words: Bristol Palin. I'm sure others have observed that if it had been a 17-year-old daughter of Obama who was pregnant out of wedlock, many conservatives would have become apoplectic! Not even considering how they would have reacted if the pregnancy had been terminated! But Palin's defenders were tripping over themselves trying to "justify" the circumstances of her unwed-teenage-pregnancy. "um! But at least her and the father are going to get married! oh, no? um! at least she chose not to have an abortion!" What was that? "Chose"? First of all, yes, there were people using this language. It seems strange, considering that these are the same people who do not consider abortion an option, who say things like, "It's not a choice! It's a child!" Secondly, if you are "pro-life," and you think there's a moral equivalence between abortion and murder, why give anyone special recognition for not murdering a child!? I never hear people congratulating mothers for not committing infanticide!1 But I digress... I fully agree with Ms. McCain that it sends the wrong message to justify making a sex or masturbation tape with/for another person on the grounds that you are in love with that person. It's the height of disingenuousness to justify an action you would otherwise condemn on such shaky grounds. Of course, she wasn't the first Republican to try to do something like that... To be fair, Ms. Prejean did appear contrite for what she admitted was the "biggest mistake of [her] life." Oh wait, sorry, make that the "eight biggest mistakes of her life." Did she really think that producing these tapes was such a huge mistake before they became public knowledge? There's no way of knowing for sure, but I'm skeptical.
Look: Let's be clear: In contrast with Ms. McCain, I neither condemn nor condone the production of sex tapes or the act of sex per se. I, in fact, have taken and distributed nude photographs of myself for, let's say, non-artistic purposes (upon request, of course, and I was "smart" enough to obscure my face). I don't envision the release of these photos as having political consequences for me since I'm being so open about it. (But honesty often has its own penalties...) As I may have said before, the ethical guidelines I try to follow are based primarily in empathy and what I "do unto others," as well as maintaining a consistency between who I am in public and in private.2 Under this paradigm, the only major "sins" [I can think of at this time] are: harming or restricting the freedom of others,3 violating prior agreements, and hypocrisy. An act such as the production of a sex tape would be "wrong" only if a person had previously agreed not to produce one or if s/he had publicly stated that such an act was immoral and had condemned others who had participated in such activities.
So the question is: Is Ms. Prejean a hypocrite? Yes, of course! Taking her full history of media appearances in context, Ms. Prejean's personal stance against same-sex marriage and in favor of "opposite marriage" is merely a sliver of a worldview that highly regards "traditional morality" and seeks to defend it from the threats that the continuing modernization of society poses against it with its "equality" (pah!) and willingness to accept "science" and "reality" (hmph!). The very acts Ms. Prejean recorded herself performing (in fact, any kind of sexuality outside the shackles of holy matrimony) are anathema to this entire worldview!
So why are people like Sean Hannity so vehemently defending this young woman? Sorry, wrong question. Why are they continuing to give her a political platform even though anyone can see that she's completely unqualified? Wait, who am I talking about? Prejean or McCain? Anyway... I think it's fairly obvious that although, yes, certain people said some mean things about Ms. Prejean (and I am certainly not trying to justify that!), she's taking the victim act way too far. Her main function in the current media storyline is to corroborate the narrative fabricated by the "right-wing" (or "traditionalists" or whatever label into which you want to shoehorn them) that traditionalists ("us" or "we") are the victims. Then they frame the issue such that those who want to change the status quo ("them" or "they") are not opposed to an unjust system, but are primarily interested in "ramming 'their' radical agenda down 'our' throats." This, enabling America's Christian/Conservative Persecution Complex, is part of the Right's own brand of identity politics and is just another way for those who have power to use the sheeple as pawns to further their own agendas.
Ms. McCain further raises the entirely valid point that traditionalists treat her very differently from how they treat Ms. Prejean. They definitely directed a lot more criticism at McCain for photographing herself when she happened to be wearing a tank-top (and I don't even need to mention their opinion about her regarding the fact that she's honest about enjoying sex! *gasp*!) than there was at Prejean who, let's remember, even before the masturbation tapes or the nude photos, participated in a competition that involved traipsing around on a stage in a bikini on national television! Surely you can see not only the hypocrisy, but also the tribalism here. Prejean's actions are justified in spite of cognitive dissonance because "she's on 'our' side!" and, "The Christian values that she has cherry-picked to defend are similar to mine!" And because McCain chooses to espouse a set of values that is different in certain areas, traditionalists treat her the same as any other non-tribe-member.
We could further ask whether or not it's "right" or "brave" to stand up for certain values for no other reason than that they just happen to be the values a person was raised to revere. Of course, the answer is a resounding "no!" I think that bravery, much like other virtues, requires that one make informed decisions and really understand (or at least make a sincere effort to understand) why one takes any specific position. The traditionalist does not stand for truth, but for dogma. Dogma is an enemy of truth. Any fool can parrot lines they were indoctrinated to believe, but it's really better and ultimately, far more rewarding for a person to make the effort to seek the truth for oneself. This is something that I don't really think either McCain or Prejean have seriously attempted. But McCain is at least somewhat better off because some of her values just so happen to be "the right ones" (this is a bit subjective, but, basically, what I mean is that her stance on gay marriage, at least, is on "the right side of history").
So should we criticize Ms. Prejean? I would say that we should only
criticize her as long as she has her undeserved platform and even then, only for her shallow understanding of the issues and her bankruptcy of core-principles (governing her own actions) and her ignorance and her hypocrisy and her opportunism and... What I'm saying is that I don't think we should engage in personal attacks against people. We should first engage people on their ideas and their words. Prejean is, of course, a person who has no business being a part of the discussion on any political issue, but that's because she hasn't done her homework. She hasn't performed (and, let's be frank, might not even be capable of taking on) the research or analysis necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion on any of the major political issues of the day. But no one should call her a "cunt" or a "dumb bitch," regardless of whether or not those are accurate characterizations of her (because, well, that's just not nice...). That said, let me emphasize that Perez Hilton clearly claims3 that he was not upset with her opposition to same-sex marriage, contrary to the narrative of the right-wing/"family-values" echo-chamber, but with the complete lack of grace and intelligence with which she answered the question. In addition, I think he was right about the answer she should have given if she did, in fact, have "half a brain." After all, he didn't directly ask her for her opinion on same-sex marriage, but she gave it to him anyway. I guess she thought that it would have made Baby Jesus cry if she had decided to take anything less than such a "bold" stand on the issue.
Ms. McCain goes on to say that she "[doesn't] want to be too harsh on Carrie Prejean" because, after all, she's only 22 and "she feels the same way about gay marriage that [sic] our own president does." Yes. Ms. Prejean is only 22. Fair enough. As I said earlier, my primary complaint is that she has this undeserved platform in the first place. But I must take issue with McCain's 2nd point. I'm growing tired of the non-stop propagation of this "Prejean and Obama have the same opinion on gay marriage" meme. Sure, they both believe that "marriage is between a man and a woman," but to stop there and claim that their views on the issue are equivalent is, at best, a beyond-Clinton/Bush-league distortion of the facts, true on only the most superficial level! I do not consider such language hyperbolic because, first of all, Prejean has, thus far, to the best of my knowledge, shown herself to be incapable of speaking intelligently on this subject, particularly from a policy standpoint. Secondly, Obama is, in fact, in favor of civil unions and even opposed Proposition 8 because it used the California constitution to take rights/priveleges away from people, which is the opposite of what a constitution is supposed to do. That said, I do think that Obama deserves criticism and pressure from supporters of same-sex marriage for his stance on this issue. I'm certainly not going to give him a free pass. It seems ironic, even hypocritical, for a black person to promote same-sex civil unions but not marriage considering the parallels between such a "separate-but-equal" policy and those used to subjugate black Americans in the past. His own parents wouldn't even have been able to marry each other in certain states until 1967!
The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is to ask what are [some] possible motivations people have for propagating this meme. Ms. McCain probably doesn't know any better. However, I have seen other bloggers incorporate this disingenuous assertion into their strategy to frame the issue. [Some of] these are the same people who always take pains to characterize Obama as some kind of radical leftist. The implication is that support of same-sex marriage is an issue so far to the left that not even our "radical-leftist" president supports it, when the reality is that same-sex marriage is not a partisan issue, but a human/civil rights issue.
Of course, there are some contradictions in this framing. First of all, President Obama is emphatically not a radical. He's a politician. Sure, he talked a lot about "change" during his campaign, and it does seem like he's working towards some of that, but most of these changes have been (or will be) cosmetic, or marginal, or superficial. He hasn't yet really done anything to drastically alter the status quo. Even the bailouts and the stimulus were not dramatic departures from previous policies (of course, this is debateable, but that's not really the point right now). Another problem with the "gay marriage is a left-wing issue" meme is the fact that many people like Meghan McCain who are not liberal support it. Also, it's not very consistent to say that the U.S. is a "center-right country," as do so many carriers of this meme, and simultaneously call an issue that regularly garners support from more than 40% in many states (and support increases the younger the demographic) a "left-wing issue." Come on, people, Which is it? You can't have it both ways!
On a final note, I've often observed that self-described conservatives seem to think that calling someone a "liberal" is some kind of trump card that wins any debate; or they use it like some sort of elementary school playground insult. Why is this? It makes even less sense to me than the use of the word "gay" as an insult.
Anyway, thanks for reading! Happy trials! Especially those of you with Conservative and/or Christian Persecution Complex! Count it all joy, my brethren [and sistren]!
1Of course, I realize that one reason for this is that it's such a common procedure. I do understand the conviction that carrying a pregnancy to term should be congratulated. I plan on discussing this issue more in-depth in a later post.
2People must be judged according to the standards by which they judge others. Of course, I believe there's always room for mercy.
3Of course, it's usually a good thing to help others if you can, and, in fact, it may be unethical if you can help another person, but don't and the other person is harmed.
4Of course, I don't claim we should take him at his word. We can have a discussion about that, but that's not the issue right now.
One person I "follow" on twitter is Meghan McCain. I was reading her article in The Daily Beast on Monday regarding conservatives' treatment of her in comparison to Carrie Prejean. There were a few points I wanted to discuss, but couldn't fit into 140 characters. (I have other topics lined up about which to blog, but this one is actually sort of timely!)
Ms. McCain rightly notes the hypocrisy of those who defend conservatives who are guilty of actions for which they would condemn everyone else (of course, I would say that the same goes for all other political/ideological groups). Speaking of this, two words: Bristol Palin. I'm sure others have observed that if it had been a 17-year-old daughter of Obama who was pregnant out of wedlock, many conservatives would have become apoplectic! Not even considering how they would have reacted if the pregnancy had been terminated! But Palin's defenders were tripping over themselves trying to "justify" the circumstances of her unwed-teenage-pregnancy. "um! But at least her and the father are going to get married! oh, no? um! at least she chose not to have an abortion!" What was that? "Chose"? First of all, yes, there were people using this language. It seems strange, considering that these are the same people who do not consider abortion an option, who say things like, "It's not a choice! It's a child!" Secondly, if you are "pro-life," and you think there's a moral equivalence between abortion and murder, why give anyone special recognition for not murdering a child!? I never hear people congratulating mothers for not committing infanticide!1 But I digress... I fully agree with Ms. McCain that it sends the wrong message to justify making a sex or masturbation tape with/for another person on the grounds that you are in love with that person. It's the height of disingenuousness to justify an action you would otherwise condemn on such shaky grounds. Of course, she wasn't the first Republican to try to do something like that... To be fair, Ms. Prejean did appear contrite for what she admitted was the "biggest mistake of [her] life." Oh wait, sorry, make that the "eight biggest mistakes of her life." Did she really think that producing these tapes was such a huge mistake before they became public knowledge? There's no way of knowing for sure, but I'm skeptical.
Look: Let's be clear: In contrast with Ms. McCain, I neither condemn nor condone the production of sex tapes or the act of sex per se. I, in fact, have taken and distributed nude photographs of myself for, let's say, non-artistic purposes (upon request, of course, and I was "smart" enough to obscure my face). I don't envision the release of these photos as having political consequences for me since I'm being so open about it. (But honesty often has its own penalties...) As I may have said before, the ethical guidelines I try to follow are based primarily in empathy and what I "do unto others," as well as maintaining a consistency between who I am in public and in private.2 Under this paradigm, the only major "sins" [I can think of at this time] are: harming or restricting the freedom of others,3 violating prior agreements, and hypocrisy. An act such as the production of a sex tape would be "wrong" only if a person had previously agreed not to produce one or if s/he had publicly stated that such an act was immoral and had condemned others who had participated in such activities.
So the question is: Is Ms. Prejean a hypocrite? Yes, of course! Taking her full history of media appearances in context, Ms. Prejean's personal stance against same-sex marriage and in favor of "opposite marriage" is merely a sliver of a worldview that highly regards "traditional morality" and seeks to defend it from the threats that the continuing modernization of society poses against it with its "equality" (pah!) and willingness to accept "science" and "reality" (hmph!). The very acts Ms. Prejean recorded herself performing (in fact, any kind of sexuality outside the shackles of holy matrimony) are anathema to this entire worldview!
So why are people like Sean Hannity so vehemently defending this young woman? Sorry, wrong question. Why are they continuing to give her a political platform even though anyone can see that she's completely unqualified? Wait, who am I talking about? Prejean or McCain? Anyway... I think it's fairly obvious that although, yes, certain people said some mean things about Ms. Prejean (and I am certainly not trying to justify that!), she's taking the victim act way too far. Her main function in the current media storyline is to corroborate the narrative fabricated by the "right-wing" (or "traditionalists" or whatever label into which you want to shoehorn them) that traditionalists ("us" or "we") are the victims. Then they frame the issue such that those who want to change the status quo ("them" or "they") are not opposed to an unjust system, but are primarily interested in "ramming 'their' radical agenda down 'our' throats." This, enabling America's Christian/Conservative Persecution Complex, is part of the Right's own brand of identity politics and is just another way for those who have power to use the sheeple as pawns to further their own agendas.
Ms. McCain further raises the entirely valid point that traditionalists treat her very differently from how they treat Ms. Prejean. They definitely directed a lot more criticism at McCain for photographing herself when she happened to be wearing a tank-top (and I don't even need to mention their opinion about her regarding the fact that she's honest about enjoying sex! *gasp*!) than there was at Prejean who, let's remember, even before the masturbation tapes or the nude photos, participated in a competition that involved traipsing around on a stage in a bikini on national television! Surely you can see not only the hypocrisy, but also the tribalism here. Prejean's actions are justified in spite of cognitive dissonance because "she's on 'our' side!" and, "The Christian values that she has cherry-picked to defend are similar to mine!" And because McCain chooses to espouse a set of values that is different in certain areas, traditionalists treat her the same as any other non-tribe-member.
We could further ask whether or not it's "right" or "brave" to stand up for certain values for no other reason than that they just happen to be the values a person was raised to revere. Of course, the answer is a resounding "no!" I think that bravery, much like other virtues, requires that one make informed decisions and really understand (or at least make a sincere effort to understand) why one takes any specific position. The traditionalist does not stand for truth, but for dogma. Dogma is an enemy of truth. Any fool can parrot lines they were indoctrinated to believe, but it's really better and ultimately, far more rewarding for a person to make the effort to seek the truth for oneself. This is something that I don't really think either McCain or Prejean have seriously attempted. But McCain is at least somewhat better off because some of her values just so happen to be "the right ones" (this is a bit subjective, but, basically, what I mean is that her stance on gay marriage, at least, is on "the right side of history").
So should we criticize Ms. Prejean? I would say that we should only
criticize her as long as she has her undeserved platform and even then, only for her shallow understanding of the issues and her bankruptcy of core-principles (governing her own actions) and her ignorance and her hypocrisy and her opportunism and... What I'm saying is that I don't think we should engage in personal attacks against people. We should first engage people on their ideas and their words. Prejean is, of course, a person who has no business being a part of the discussion on any political issue, but that's because she hasn't done her homework. She hasn't performed (and, let's be frank, might not even be capable of taking on) the research or analysis necessary to come to a reasoned conclusion on any of the major political issues of the day. But no one should call her a "cunt" or a "dumb bitch," regardless of whether or not those are accurate characterizations of her (because, well, that's just not nice...). That said, let me emphasize that Perez Hilton clearly claims3 that he was not upset with her opposition to same-sex marriage, contrary to the narrative of the right-wing/"family-values" echo-chamber, but with the complete lack of grace and intelligence with which she answered the question. In addition, I think he was right about the answer she should have given if she did, in fact, have "half a brain." After all, he didn't directly ask her for her opinion on same-sex marriage, but she gave it to him anyway. I guess she thought that it would have made Baby Jesus cry if she had decided to take anything less than such a "bold" stand on the issue.
Ms. McCain goes on to say that she "[doesn't] want to be too harsh on Carrie Prejean" because, after all, she's only 22 and "she feels the same way about gay marriage that [sic] our own president does." Yes. Ms. Prejean is only 22. Fair enough. As I said earlier, my primary complaint is that she has this undeserved platform in the first place. But I must take issue with McCain's 2nd point. I'm growing tired of the non-stop propagation of this "Prejean and Obama have the same opinion on gay marriage" meme. Sure, they both believe that "marriage is between a man and a woman," but to stop there and claim that their views on the issue are equivalent is, at best, a beyond-Clinton/Bush-league distortion of the facts, true on only the most superficial level! I do not consider such language hyperbolic because, first of all, Prejean has, thus far, to the best of my knowledge, shown herself to be incapable of speaking intelligently on this subject, particularly from a policy standpoint. Secondly, Obama is, in fact, in favor of civil unions and even opposed Proposition 8 because it used the California constitution to take rights/priveleges away from people, which is the opposite of what a constitution is supposed to do. That said, I do think that Obama deserves criticism and pressure from supporters of same-sex marriage for his stance on this issue. I'm certainly not going to give him a free pass. It seems ironic, even hypocritical, for a black person to promote same-sex civil unions but not marriage considering the parallels between such a "separate-but-equal" policy and those used to subjugate black Americans in the past. His own parents wouldn't even have been able to marry each other in certain states until 1967!
The logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is to ask what are [some] possible motivations people have for propagating this meme. Ms. McCain probably doesn't know any better. However, I have seen other bloggers incorporate this disingenuous assertion into their strategy to frame the issue. [Some of] these are the same people who always take pains to characterize Obama as some kind of radical leftist. The implication is that support of same-sex marriage is an issue so far to the left that not even our "radical-leftist" president supports it, when the reality is that same-sex marriage is not a partisan issue, but a human/civil rights issue.
Of course, there are some contradictions in this framing. First of all, President Obama is emphatically not a radical. He's a politician. Sure, he talked a lot about "change" during his campaign, and it does seem like he's working towards some of that, but most of these changes have been (or will be) cosmetic, or marginal, or superficial. He hasn't yet really done anything to drastically alter the status quo. Even the bailouts and the stimulus were not dramatic departures from previous policies (of course, this is debateable, but that's not really the point right now). Another problem with the "gay marriage is a left-wing issue" meme is the fact that many people like Meghan McCain who are not liberal support it. Also, it's not very consistent to say that the U.S. is a "center-right country," as do so many carriers of this meme, and simultaneously call an issue that regularly garners support from more than 40% in many states (and support increases the younger the demographic) a "left-wing issue." Come on, people, Which is it? You can't have it both ways!
On a final note, I've often observed that self-described conservatives seem to think that calling someone a "liberal" is some kind of trump card that wins any debate; or they use it like some sort of elementary school playground insult. Why is this? It makes even less sense to me than the use of the word "gay" as an insult.
Anyway, thanks for reading! Happy trials! Especially those of you with Conservative and/or Christian Persecution Complex! Count it all joy, my brethren [and sistren]!
1Of course, I realize that one reason for this is that it's such a common procedure. I do understand the conviction that carrying a pregnancy to term should be congratulated. I plan on discussing this issue more in-depth in a later post.
2People must be judged according to the standards by which they judge others. Of course, I believe there's always room for mercy.
3Of course, it's usually a good thing to help others if you can, and, in fact, it may be unethical if you can help another person, but don't and the other person is harmed.
4Of course, I don't claim we should take him at his word. We can have a discussion about that, but that's not the issue right now.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
New YouTube Video: "I Want You..."
I want to feel connected to you
I want to understand you, and I want you to understand me.
I want to be able to look into your eyes and know that I'm speaking to a human being.
I want you to make yourself completely vulnerable--completely break down the walls you've built around you.
Dispell all preconceived notions you've ever had about anything.
Let us not be afraid to be completely honest with ourselves and each other.
Let us reject fear, pride, contempt, and other irrationalities.
I'm not looking for a fight. I am not your enemy.
I want you to realize that we are all one... figuratively speaking.
Is this too much to expect?
Saturday, August 15, 2009
New YouTube Video: "Fuck Her Gently"
This is my cover of "Fuck Her Gently" by Tenacious D. I'm sure I would have otherwise made my first video one in which I attempt to expound "deep thoughts" or whatever as I [attempt to] do here in my blog. It just so happens that I finished this first. Oh well. I'm sure I'll put up "real" videos later. Anyway, enjoy!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
And Now For Something Completely Different [Warning: Please Do Not Read This!!!]
I was taking a nap today [Oh, Mexican taking a nap. Who would have thought!?] and during it, I had a dream about this youtuber to whom I subscribe (ColourMeAmy), which is strange, considering I've never even come close to meeting her in real life and she's Canadian, and I'm in the American southwest, which is quite far away, although, last week, I did comment on one of her videos, and she replied to me. Anyway, in the dream, she was living in a house in a rural area, but she was in the process of moving and I visited because I wanted to see her off, like somehow I knew where she lived and it was ok for me to be there, although even in the dream, we had never met each other before. So I came in from the back, noticed the house was empty, and then went out through the front door. I wasn't the only one there. There were other people standing around in the front yard. There was a row of trees between the road and the yard. There was no fence in the front, (maybe on the sides). She was near a car on the side of the road, I think packing some of her belongings into it. Some of her stuff had been arranged in piles ready to be placed into whatever vehicle was going to take the stuff away. I (accidentally) knocked over a few things somehow [that's what I do. I knock things over. boohoo...], and then I was trying to keep other stuff from falling down that I had somehow made unbalanced. And that's when she saw me, and she started walking over to where I was, and I was like "sorry, I don't know how this happened," and then, maybe I was wondering "how do I introduce myself to her?" [in case you were wondering, "Adderall Apocalypse" is not my real name]. I don't exactly remember what "happened" next, but she said a few things, and then I probably said a few things, and then, a bit later, I heard the choral intro to Madonna's "Like a Prayer" [still in the same setting; I think everyone else there was the "choir"], although I didn't recognize it at first. So then we both spontaneously started singing the part of the intro that Madonna sings, although I couldn't quite hit the high part ("I hear you call my name"), especially since I had food in my mouth, somehow, so I just stayed silent for that line, and then, I think, after "and it feels like... home..." that's when I woke up. Very strange...
By the way, I really like the song. It's the subject of a joke I'm sure I stole from a music magazine made up. One reason I like the song so much is that it's vague, so I'm not sure what it's about. Is it about fellatio, or is it about God? Or is it about performing fellatio on God?
By the way, I really like the song. It's the subject of a joke I
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
