Viva Forever

Many thanks to Tim for helping me refine this article.
Here’s something that really jumped out at me the past few months, and I’ve noticed it from people both online and offline. It’s the line:

“I know I <insert bad trait> but at least I admit”

There are variations to that but the message is still the same. Here are examples I’ve heard and I paraphrase:

1. From Uni class

“I’m a commerce/law student, I know I’ll probably behave unethically one day, I know I that I’ll probably put profits over moral concerns, but at least I can admit to it”

2. From casual conversation

“I know I’m homophobic, but I at least I’m not hiding it.”

3. Online forums/blogs

“I know I’m immature, I know I’m mean and pick on people, but at least I admit to it, I’ve never denied it.”

I’m not trying to pick on anyone in particular and I may have done the same thing myself without knowing. But… what do such sentiments mean? Such a reply only ever makes sense when someone is asking, “did you KNOW you hold bad opinions?” Once it’s been answered in the affirmative, what role does “… at least I admit it” answers play? Is… it supposed to be a justification? Surely it can’t be that just because they ADMITTED to the bad trait, that makes it okay, right? I’ve been thinking about this over and over again and all that I’ve come up with is that it’s a feeble attempt to distract the audience from focusing on the fact that they just admitted to holding what would be terrible ideologies to the fact that they’re “honest” and “forthcoming” about themselves. But I don’t see how honesty has anything to do with the type of opinions one hold.

A consequence of such an attitude is the internalisation within the actual person of these ideas. These people might have very well convinced themselves “yeah I hold these values, I know other people don’t, but at least I’m honest with myself” with the heavy preoccupation on congratulating themselves on the latter part, the “I’m honest, yay” part, rather than coming to terms with the actual opinion.

I have a feeling that people who hold such ways of thinking might be tempted to retort with “well would you rather I deny I hold these opinions?” But not only does that just gives a false impression that “it’s either this extreme, or this other extreme”, it once again avoids discourse on the actual opinion itself. Your level of honesty is not the issue. The point is, why you think it’s okay to hold these opinions. Whether or not you admit to being homophobic, or unethical, or immature etc, in the end, this isn’t going to reflect how you behave and colour your actions. Whether you admit to such opinions or not isn’t going to change the fact that you’re going to behave homophobically, unethically, immaturely etc. My question is, why is this acceptable?

Let’s take the first example, because no one likes nasty would-be lawyers. It’s almost like he’s saying that he doesn’t need to be ethical just because he’s told everyone he’s not. It’s the same with the other examples, the implication seems to be, yes I admit I have this fault, isn’t it good enough?

The short answer is “no”. The language of self-help, 12-step programs is everywhere nowadays, and everyone knows the famous line “the first step is admitting you have a problem”. You know how people clap and behave sympathetically at AA meetings when someone admits they’re an alcoholic? In such situations though, the assumption is that such honesty is followed by a change in behaviour. People need to be reminded that admitting you have a problem is not the ONLY step, merely the first. The next question we need to ask these people is, “what are you going to do about it?”

This is a response to Rhiannon’s “obligatory WBB disclaimer” for her Webmaster’s Behaving Badly series. Here’s *my* obligatory disclaimer: this isn’t a “OMFG I hate Rhiannon she’s so mean” post. In fact, I think she writes quite well, I enjoy her reviews and opinions, and she’s on my dailies list. But as she said on her disclaimer, “opinions are healthy, and those who are not afraid to display them in an honest, forthright manner deserve to be commended” so here’s my opinion!
Read the rest of this entry »

Goes to… Bill Maher.

Now, I’ve only heard of this “comedian” very recently. From seeing his stand up routines on youtube, I personally found his jokes to be mostly sub par; lots of Bush jokes (the “George Bush can’t read LULZ” variety), lots of appealing to stereotypes regarding men/women that I guess to some people might be funny. Each to their own I suppose, but not to my taste. He’s apparently relatively popular though, and has his own talk show.

But here’s what really boils my blood. Wiki states that,

‘He [Bill Maher] has expressed disdain for many of the liberal positions regarding hate crime, sexual harassment, etc. as being “things that make women nod.”‘

Assuming that the quote is accurate, that’s the most… insulting idea I’ve heard all week. Not just for women, but for EVERYONE. That idea suggests that:

1. There are some liberal positions considered “aimed” at women;
2. These positions are somehow less significant than other causes because they are aimed to appease a certain demographic (women) rather than existing in their own right;
3. These causes are implicitly less important than other ones because, these causes almost seem to be meant to “entertain” women and hence if any men were to be involved, it might be implicitly emasculating;
4. The women are not even really engaging with the causes, as implied from the very passive act of “nodding” and
5. Other causes (presumably ones that are more “for men”) are better than the ones that “make women nod”.

I can’t get out of my head, this utterly smug and demeaning idea that in this day and age, Maher implies that issues like sexual harassment as merely select topics that women can feel “comfortable” with knowing. It’s the idea that Maher considers there are some discussions of social problems are tailored for women to mindlessly agree with as they sip tea during the commercial breaks of Oprah. That there are particular categories of human suffering or injustice (such as those stemming from hate crimes) that are merely those so generously donated as subjects by the wise and clever men in the world, for women to blunder and fumble with, or at least, to nod to.

As I said above, such idea is an insult to intelligent men AND women. It’s an insult to the men out there who don’t see certain issues, especially those that concern the suffering of other human beings, as being unimportant enough to dismiss. It’s an insult to the women out there who don’t simply “nod” at ANY issue, but can come to an independent conclusion of their own. It’s an insult to the victims of these particular social problems to have their problems, if not totally dismissed, then at least drastically diminished in importance. None of this should be the case, and I’m appalled that someone who calls himself a liberal would have such shallow and sexist take on things. What a douche!

Yesterday I had some free time at Uni and I went to our medical clinic and got a free needle injection of Gardasil! Now I’m vaccinated from the four most common strains of HPV thus drastically reducing the chances of me developing cervical cancer. Booyah!

I heard about the vaccine a little while ago and I only realised that it was free in Australia for women between the ages of 12 and 26 when walking by our Uni clinic. Unfortunately there is an age restriction for free injections for economics sakes; each injection costs about $150 and to give those with Medicare a free injection is quite costly. I guess they can only give it to those most at risk. Hooray for universal healthcare!

The only think I’ve heard about it before is the controversy in the US about vaccinating young girls for a reason that makes my blood absolutely BOIL with rage. Many US conservatives object to allowing their teenage girls from being vaccinated because making sex safer will “encourage” sexual promiscuity. The reasoning behind this is vomit-inducing.

These conservative, “concerned parents” cling to their parental rights that they should be allowed to withdraw their daughter from being vaccinated against a sexually transmitted disease. Have they considered the parental responsibility of securing the safety of their child? Denying your child a HPV vaccine is not likely to magically stop your 15 year old from fooling around with boys if they are going to do that. Another argument seems to be that kids that are young, when being vaccinated, might inadvertently learn about having sex with boys. Somehow… I doubt that. I have a feeling that a 12 year old isn’t going to think “yay now that I’m vaccinated against human papillomavirus that means I now know what intercourse is and that I should have some!”

I’m sure not all of these conservative parents are so foolish and naive as to think that not vaccinating to their child would definite lead to abstinence. I’m sure some have considered what would happen if their daughter did have sex and contracted HPV and there is an implicit desire to punish “immoral” behaviour. It reeks of “I don’t want my teenage daughter to get vaccinated because if she fools around and gets HPV or cervical cancer, well she deserves it for being such a slut”. Mmm, sounds like wonderful parenting.

But yeah, I’m vaccinated. The needle hurts a bit and made my arm a little sore and weak-feeling for a little while but it got better quickly.

You know what’s been bugging me lately? People complaining that others should boycott buying cheap goods (e.g. stuff from Walmart) from nations like China etc, because that’s encouraging incredibly bad work conditions, child labour etc. Instead it’s optimal to buy things made in your own country to support it economically. You know what? The world doesn’t work optimally. That’s why there’s even such a problem for them to complain about in the first place.

You know what happens when people en masse stop buying things like 50 pairs of socks for $2 a packet from Walmart? Someone in China, probably entire factory full of people in China, are out of work. Instead of getting their pittance of US$3.1/AU$3.8 a month they’re going to be unemployed, dependent on measly state welfare, and even poorer than they were. Upset about hungry children having to work? How about instead a starving child, having to find alternative work (maybe in the form of child prostitution, begging) like the rest of the family?

On the other side of things, some Americans have criticised other Americans from not “wanting” to buy US products because they expensive. I don’t think the problem is not “wanting” but that they simply CAN’T. Americans have a terrible welfare system and there’s so many people living in poverty. They don’t care about where their next meal is Chinese or American, sometimes it’s good enough that they have a next meal.

People have also surmised that Americans would never work in the conditions that many Chinese have to endure in sweatshops because the Chinese would get gaoled/killed if they were to protest against the conditions. Actually I believe that many such Chinese sweatshop owners have embraced capitalism at its core; don’t want to work for us? You’re fired, there’s twenty other people desperate enough for our money anyway. Not only is this a problem concerning the amazingly (and by “amazingly” I mean “terribly”) deregulated market in China, but also with an huge lack of resources for its burgeoning population. There’s simply not enough money to go around.

What I’m trying to say, is stop freaking blaming the victim. The victims are the poor workers in China (and whatever other nations that are exploited for their goods) and poor consumers in more well-off nations. Boycott goods that both groups of people depend on would ultimately serve to do nothing but harm those involved. Yes it is a terrible situation, but not all solutions are good ones, and may actually cause more harm than good. It would at least help to recognise that it’s not the fault of the victims for what is going on. Of course, I’m optimistic that a few digg members aren’t representative of the general population. :P

While I’m ranting, God Giuliani pisses me off. The most WTFery for me was when he said,

“We don’t want socialized medicine. Maybe you should go see ‘Sicko,’ see if you agree with Michael Moore that we should have the Cuban health care system. That’s where the Democrats are taking us… All the places that have government-run health care, it’s inferior to us. We’ve got to preserve our private system. People will have to earn some of that access. Let’s not become a nanny state. You don’t help somebody when you make them dependent. You make it within their realm to do it, but give them a chance to earn it. The system gets destroyed when you start making big promises.”

Of course, those who are poor simply aren’t “earning” their access. What, holding down three minimum-wage jobs to try to support your kids? Not good enough, slacker. What, you have some sort of illness that makes you not be able to work properly? That’s totally non-American, freaking leecher. Now get back out there and work like everyone else. I also loved how he spun the example of the Cuban health care system. Michael Moore saw it that EVEN an “inferior nation” has better healthcare, however, Giuliani suggests that Cuban economy collapsed or something because they have healthcare. Sure, that’s what happened. Ugh. I really hope he doesn’t become president, and I’m not even American. :(