There is a motto I try my best to live by. That motto is "Better than I was yesterday" because that is my goal every day: to be at least marginally better than the previous day. There is a motto that some of the most disgusting individuals on earth live by. That motto is "Everyone is perfect just the way they are." You may have guessed it by now but I have a huge bone to pick with the idea of universal perfection.
It's objectively false. No matter which direction you approach it, it is false. For one thing, everyone is different; not just as far as their interests are concerned but also the degree of natural talent everyone has or the amount of progress they have achieved. Universal perfection is fundamentally incompatible with reality because there is no universal category into which everyone falls aside from "human" and being human doesn't automatically remove the potential for imperfection.
It's harmful to progress. What good does it do anyone to internalize the belief that they are perfect? You may feel less like killing yourself for being so near to worthlessness that your death would almost benefit humanity but that doesn't change the fact that you're almost worthless if, in fact, you are almost worthless. (I say *almost* worthless because everyone has the potential to improve and become not worthless, even if they are a detriment to the species) But if you are almost worthless and you internalize the idea that you are actually perfect, nobody benefits. You don't benefit because you're still the same almost worthless douche and society doesn't benefit because it's still having to deal with your near worthlessness.
It's harmful to people's self-image. If, somehow, you managed to actually start believing and acting as though you were perfect based solely on the fact that you both exist and are human, it would be a delicate sort of existence. In order to maintain this sort of belief, one would need to ignore practically all information available to them about themselves. If you found some piece of information about yourself and believed it to be true, it would be catastrophic since it would inevitably lend itself to the idea that you aren't perfect. The only way to have both - an understanding of facts about yourself and a belief that you are perfect - is to perform some sort of double-think. If it turned out that you were not capable of double-think, believed that you were perfect, and then discovered a fact about yourself and believed it, it would inevitably lead to even more pain as your poor little deluded world fell apart.
There is of course another way to do things. I would call it humility. Humility isn't the assumption that everyone is better than you but the knowledge that there is almost definitely someone somewhere who knows something that could help you improve, that asking for help and being malleable and coachable is not shameful no matter how accomplished you are, that you are not perfect nor will you ever be, and that being content with yourself is the best way to stagnate.
Humanity makes progress. That anything humans have ever done to improve themselves, their own condition, or the condition of anything has actually had a quantifiable and objectively positive effect on anything is enough evidence to overthrow this idea of universal perfection.
I'm going to make a pretty bold statement: the meaning of life is to improve or transcend. (that's up for debate, of course) That's what all organisms do: they get better; better at living in a particular environment, better at reproducing and spreading their genes, whatever. To claim that perfection has already been achieved is to say life has no point anymore. "We've already done it. Go home. Nothing to see here. We're already perfect. There's no sense in doing anything at all." THAT is what disgusts me.
-Ben
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Sunday, December 28, 2014
But for real. I hate cops.
If you didn't sign up to be a cop to protect and serve people, even potentially at the expense of your life, you chose the wrong job. Or at least that's what I'd say if reality were in line with pretty much everyone's expectations. Who didn't picture cops as heroes when they were growing up? (That was supposed to be rhetorical but I bet there are a lot of people who thought cops were pretty scary.) I thought cops were heroes. They fought bad guys and saved lives, right? Right?
21 years into this and I still don't know. Do cops fight bad guys? Sometimes, I guess. What if the bad guys are other cops? Nope! Cops don't even remotely consider the possibility that other cops could be the bad guys. Either that or they'll lose their job if they start fighting the corruption inherent in the system. Cops stick together because they don't have a choice. The longer it goes on, the worse they get. Good, corruption-fighting cops are expelled like the pus from a swollen pubescent pimple.
Onto current(ish) events:
It must really suck being an NYPD officer right now. You feel betrayed. All along you thought that beating, bullying, and killing people was protecting them even though it's technically against the laws you swore to uphold. For so long it's been you and the government against the world and the world didn't really fight back much anyway so it was all fun and games. You'd brutalize a peaceful citizen, they'd try to get charges brought against you but, through it all, you had the government to bail you out. What a relief to have big brother there to wag his finger and say, "be more careful next time," and then wink because you both know that you won't and that you've both got each other's backs. All of the sudden, a new politician comes along and he has this crazy notion that the police, the enforcers of the law, should not be breaking the law.
BOOM
"We're going to symbolically turn our backs to you just like you did to us."
Oh, you're going to blame the mayor for not being alright with you literally getting away with murder? You're gonna blame people murdering cops in revenge for cops murdering unarmed, nonviolent citizens on the mayor? I don't understand. I mean, I understand that with Michael Brown there was at least the veil of not really knowing for sure what happened. With Eric Garner you've got nothing except "well he was breaking the law." Look out speeders. Look out kids who drink underage. Look out anyone who's ever broken a law. You have all apparently done something that justifies your murder in the eyes of cop apologists.
A lot of people who are anti-police say that it is just recently that this has all come about. I'm not sure that that's true. I definitely think the police have always had this sort of unspoken agreement with the legislators that, as long as they act unquestioningly as the faithful agents of the government, the government will look out for them and make sure they don't get in trouble for anything. Law enforcement has definitely stepped up its game in the wake of 911 though and it continues to get worse and worse. It's to the point where any assembly of people protesting is treated like a violent protest and maybe that's what the government wants. It isn't necessarily what the people want.
The people want cops who protect the people and not themselves. The people want cops who aren't dicks. The people are perfectly willing to accomplish these goals through peaceful means but when you build it up like every public demonstration is this imminent riot and shut it down, it's just going to make things worse. As a person who likes to speak my mind and at least have the illusion that I'm being heard, I can tell you that being shut down and not allowed to even try to communicate my position is quite possibly the most frustrating thing I ever have to endure. Why the hell would you take people who are so upset about something that they are out protesting - yelling and screaming - and tell them that they aren't allowed to do that? Shutting down people who are upset and vocal is the best way to ensure that they will become upset and violent. But I'm sure the government knows that.
I have the sneaking suspicious that the government is intentionally throwing gas on the flames by not indicting people for things that could have easily gotten an indictment were the accused not a cop and by shutting down protesters as quickly as possible. This way, when the violence inevitably happens, the blood will be on the hands of the revolutionaries. This little revolution train is chugging along at quite the clip and, if the government doesn't seriously audit itself very soon, there will be a civil war. There's already enough civil unrest to fill the streets for miles and miles. To not change in the face of so much fury is to ensure a violent revolution. I do not in any way condone such a revolution but this change has to happen one way or the other. I'm not the one shutting the door on peace.
-Ben
21 years into this and I still don't know. Do cops fight bad guys? Sometimes, I guess. What if the bad guys are other cops? Nope! Cops don't even remotely consider the possibility that other cops could be the bad guys. Either that or they'll lose their job if they start fighting the corruption inherent in the system. Cops stick together because they don't have a choice. The longer it goes on, the worse they get. Good, corruption-fighting cops are expelled like the pus from a swollen pubescent pimple.
Onto current(ish) events:
It must really suck being an NYPD officer right now. You feel betrayed. All along you thought that beating, bullying, and killing people was protecting them even though it's technically against the laws you swore to uphold. For so long it's been you and the government against the world and the world didn't really fight back much anyway so it was all fun and games. You'd brutalize a peaceful citizen, they'd try to get charges brought against you but, through it all, you had the government to bail you out. What a relief to have big brother there to wag his finger and say, "be more careful next time," and then wink because you both know that you won't and that you've both got each other's backs. All of the sudden, a new politician comes along and he has this crazy notion that the police, the enforcers of the law, should not be breaking the law.
BOOM
"We're going to symbolically turn our backs to you just like you did to us."
Oh, you're going to blame the mayor for not being alright with you literally getting away with murder? You're gonna blame people murdering cops in revenge for cops murdering unarmed, nonviolent citizens on the mayor? I don't understand. I mean, I understand that with Michael Brown there was at least the veil of not really knowing for sure what happened. With Eric Garner you've got nothing except "well he was breaking the law." Look out speeders. Look out kids who drink underage. Look out anyone who's ever broken a law. You have all apparently done something that justifies your murder in the eyes of cop apologists.
A lot of people who are anti-police say that it is just recently that this has all come about. I'm not sure that that's true. I definitely think the police have always had this sort of unspoken agreement with the legislators that, as long as they act unquestioningly as the faithful agents of the government, the government will look out for them and make sure they don't get in trouble for anything. Law enforcement has definitely stepped up its game in the wake of 911 though and it continues to get worse and worse. It's to the point where any assembly of people protesting is treated like a violent protest and maybe that's what the government wants. It isn't necessarily what the people want.
The people want cops who protect the people and not themselves. The people want cops who aren't dicks. The people are perfectly willing to accomplish these goals through peaceful means but when you build it up like every public demonstration is this imminent riot and shut it down, it's just going to make things worse. As a person who likes to speak my mind and at least have the illusion that I'm being heard, I can tell you that being shut down and not allowed to even try to communicate my position is quite possibly the most frustrating thing I ever have to endure. Why the hell would you take people who are so upset about something that they are out protesting - yelling and screaming - and tell them that they aren't allowed to do that? Shutting down people who are upset and vocal is the best way to ensure that they will become upset and violent. But I'm sure the government knows that.
I have the sneaking suspicious that the government is intentionally throwing gas on the flames by not indicting people for things that could have easily gotten an indictment were the accused not a cop and by shutting down protesters as quickly as possible. This way, when the violence inevitably happens, the blood will be on the hands of the revolutionaries. This little revolution train is chugging along at quite the clip and, if the government doesn't seriously audit itself very soon, there will be a civil war. There's already enough civil unrest to fill the streets for miles and miles. To not change in the face of so much fury is to ensure a violent revolution. I do not in any way condone such a revolution but this change has to happen one way or the other. I'm not the one shutting the door on peace.
-Ben
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Kowtow is the New Pledging Position
Pro tip: If you don't want something to happen, simply make an anonymous threat to either shoot-up or bomb the event and it will be cancelled! It's a little known fact that bowing to terrorists' demands is actually standard operating procedure in the US! I hear next year we're going to start switching out our Grand Union flag (you know the old stars and stripes) for the flag of whatever country is currently sending us the most threads and instead of standing and saying the pledge of allegiance, we're going to kowtow and be quite in the hopes that no one follows through with any of their threats.
[SERIOUS TIME]
But really, why is it that people think that every single threat is credible. If I were actually going to shoot up or bomb a place, I would do it without warning. The only reason I would send an actual threat to someone is if I wanted to prevent them from doing something, in which case I probably would have no intention on following through with the threat. I know that I'm operating on a higher level of thinking than most of the people who actually commit mass-shootings or bombings but it still doesn't make sense. If you wanted to kill people, you would want to minimize the number of survivors and the best way to do that would be to not let anyone know what's going on. It's just intuitive. Look at how people play video games. You don't get many kills if you go stomping around and firing your weapons randomly. Your best course of action is to maintain as much stealth as possible by firing your weapon as few times as possible and attracting the attention of as few enemies as possible.
Standard operating procedure should be to take ZERO threats seriously unless there is actual evidence that an attack is eminent and such evidence is probably never gathered in regards to attacks that are threatened because threats pose no threat.
(This is about Sony as well as many other recent instances of people bowing to the demands of people who threaten them.)
-Ben
[SERIOUS TIME]
But really, why is it that people think that every single threat is credible. If I were actually going to shoot up or bomb a place, I would do it without warning. The only reason I would send an actual threat to someone is if I wanted to prevent them from doing something, in which case I probably would have no intention on following through with the threat. I know that I'm operating on a higher level of thinking than most of the people who actually commit mass-shootings or bombings but it still doesn't make sense. If you wanted to kill people, you would want to minimize the number of survivors and the best way to do that would be to not let anyone know what's going on. It's just intuitive. Look at how people play video games. You don't get many kills if you go stomping around and firing your weapons randomly. Your best course of action is to maintain as much stealth as possible by firing your weapon as few times as possible and attracting the attention of as few enemies as possible.
Standard operating procedure should be to take ZERO threats seriously unless there is actual evidence that an attack is eminent and such evidence is probably never gathered in regards to attacks that are threatened because threats pose no threat.
(This is about Sony as well as many other recent instances of people bowing to the demands of people who threaten them.)
-Ben
St. Louis Police Association Rant (FB)
Here's another rant from Facebook to hold you over. I know you must be on the edge of your seat awaiting yet another one of my rants.
"Rant warning.
"Rant warning.
The rhetoric used by the St. Louis Police condemning the "hands-up, don't shoot" pose that several St. Louis Rams players assumed while walking onto the field demonstrates conclusively that the police are 100% delusional about the state of their own community. Since when does "protecting this community" include dispersing peaceful protesters and ignoring looters? The only reason the Oath Keepers have a noticeable presence in Ferguson is because the police aren't doing their job.
Blah blah blah "...defend this community from those on the streets that perpetuate this myth that Michael Brown was executed by a brother police officer..." OOOOHHHHHHH! You don't like for people to think a certain thing so you're out to silence them while claiming that perpetuation of that idea is itself "dangerous" and that infringing on people's constitutional rights is somehow "protecting" anyone. I get it. "We just want to burn all of the books we don't like. What's so wrong with that?" I would recommend that Fahrenheit 451 be put on the required reading list for every police academy but I doubt they'd even understand that the firemen are the bad guys.
Rant over."
Not-Indicting-The-Police Rant (FB)
I figured you might want some more reading material since this blog is relatively new so here is a ranting status of mine from Facebook.
"This is the censored edition of this status. I left blanks for your imagination. Have fun... but probably not.
"This is the censored edition of this status. I left blanks for your imagination. Have fun... but probably not.
I take back what I said. Cop cams would apparently be a futile _______ effort. We ought to seriously in - _______ - vestigate our entire justice system if we're not even able to take real, unaltered video mother _______ evidence of a police officer killing an unarmed, non-combative human _______ being and say, "Yeah. Okay. Maybe this police officer might have committed a crime. We could take this to trial and try and sort things out."
No crime was committed. In fact, there isn't even a reasonable possibility that a crime was committed and there's absolutely no reason for any further inquiry. When you don't indict someone, that's what you're saying. Killing unarmed, non-combative human beings is not a crime if you're a cop. Is that the god ____ mother _______ precedent that this country intends to set?! It sure as ____ looks like it.
This is not a forum for freely discussing this issue. Similar to this status, comments will be censored at my discretion."
-Ben
-Ben
Rape Rant
If you don't think that a person who is accusing another person of rape should be taken on their word always and no matter what, you're not what I would classify as a feminist and this message shouldn't upset you.
If you do think that, I would like to know why you think that anything could justify stripping someone of human rights, particularly something as shaky as the testimony of a person who would be more than happy to wield the power of make-people-go-away-forever.
No. I don't believe you when you say you were raped just like I don't believe you when you say you didn't rape someone.
That stems, of course, from my tendency to not believe people. False reporting is one of the only things you can count on and there is no reason, not even an accusation of the crime of rape, that makes a person's word worth anything even remotely resembling actual evidence.
If you are raped, have a rape kit done; otherwise, you're destroying evidence. There is no good reason for you to ask the justice system to bend over backwards and strip people of due process just because you had the poor judgement to destroy what is very likely the only real evidence of a crime that was committed against you.
If anyone is enabling any sort of rape culture that might exist somewhere, it's the people who are raped and then don't have a rape kit done and the people who defend that type of person. Fine. Let rapists get away with rape. Sorry. I was under the impression that you thought rape was a terrible crime. Shouldn't a person who thinks that way be empowering rape victims to fight back?
I am indeed victim blaming. Any rape victim who destroys evidence of the crime committed against them is absolutely 100% to blame when the alleged rapist is not convicted. It's not up to the justice system to accept BS evidence standards. It's up to the victim to preserve evidence.
If someone runs a red light and hits you, you don't tell them they should leave before the cops show up unless you want them to get away with running a red light and hitting you. And if you do tell them to leave and they do actually end up leaving and it turns out that no traffic cameras caught the accident, who could possibly be blamed for that person getting away with running a red light and hitting you aside from you yourself and you? Is it up to the judge to convict someone who you say ran the red light and hit you with an otherwise complete lack of evidence.
(Answer Key: Nobody, No.)
Without evidence standards, criminal trials are nothing more than witch hunts. Yes, having standards for evidence means that the guilty walk sometimes but it also means that the innocent walk the vast majority of the time. Under Puritan and Feminist law, nobody walks away from an accusation. Everyone accused is sentenced. I, for one, value the freedom of the innocent far more than I value the punishment of the guilty.
-Ben
If you do think that, I would like to know why you think that anything could justify stripping someone of human rights, particularly something as shaky as the testimony of a person who would be more than happy to wield the power of make-people-go-away-forever.
No. I don't believe you when you say you were raped just like I don't believe you when you say you didn't rape someone.
That stems, of course, from my tendency to not believe people. False reporting is one of the only things you can count on and there is no reason, not even an accusation of the crime of rape, that makes a person's word worth anything even remotely resembling actual evidence.
If you are raped, have a rape kit done; otherwise, you're destroying evidence. There is no good reason for you to ask the justice system to bend over backwards and strip people of due process just because you had the poor judgement to destroy what is very likely the only real evidence of a crime that was committed against you.
If anyone is enabling any sort of rape culture that might exist somewhere, it's the people who are raped and then don't have a rape kit done and the people who defend that type of person. Fine. Let rapists get away with rape. Sorry. I was under the impression that you thought rape was a terrible crime. Shouldn't a person who thinks that way be empowering rape victims to fight back?
I am indeed victim blaming. Any rape victim who destroys evidence of the crime committed against them is absolutely 100% to blame when the alleged rapist is not convicted. It's not up to the justice system to accept BS evidence standards. It's up to the victim to preserve evidence.
If someone runs a red light and hits you, you don't tell them they should leave before the cops show up unless you want them to get away with running a red light and hitting you. And if you do tell them to leave and they do actually end up leaving and it turns out that no traffic cameras caught the accident, who could possibly be blamed for that person getting away with running a red light and hitting you aside from you yourself and you? Is it up to the judge to convict someone who you say ran the red light and hit you with an otherwise complete lack of evidence.
(Answer Key: Nobody, No.)
Without evidence standards, criminal trials are nothing more than witch hunts. Yes, having standards for evidence means that the guilty walk sometimes but it also means that the innocent walk the vast majority of the time. Under Puritan and Feminist law, nobody walks away from an accusation. Everyone accused is sentenced. I, for one, value the freedom of the innocent far more than I value the punishment of the guilty.
-Ben
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)