Here's why modern democratic politics scares me...it isn't what it should be.
Political elections, even if only between two major parties (and let's face it, most countries only HAVE two major parties...some of us occasionally pretend to pay attention to others, but it's usually just to teach the big kids a lesson in humility) should debate their issues as follows:
Candidate #1: I promise to increase funding for social programs, so that there is health care for your illnesses, school for your children, pension for your old age, and dignified hope for the less fortunate.
Me: That's a good policy. As a Christian and a man who plans for the future, I see the benefits.
Candidate #2: I will reduce government spending in order to lower your taxes, leaving you with more money to support your family; if you choose to donate, that is your business, not the government's.
Me: Hmm. As a working man and a believer in self-sufficiency, this appeals to me as well. Come election day, I will have to decide which policy I prefer when casting my vote. Whoever wins, there will be both benefits and drawbacks.
See how reasonable that sounds? Picking the candidate whose policies best match your personal views and opinions, then voting accordingly? That is how it should be.
But for whatever reason, the process has devolved into a baser and frankly much more dangerous display of rhetoric. See if you can spot the difference between the preceding debate and the following:
Candidate #1: My opponent will run the economy into the ground, everyone will lose their jobs except his rich friends, women and minority groups will lose all human rights, and wars will break out all over the world.
Candidate #2: My opponent will turn this country into the USSR because he is actually a Muslim Hitler and wants to burn down your house.
Candidate #1: My opponent worships Satan.
Candidate #2: My opponent is an evil alien.
Chuck Norris (ACTUAL QUOTE): If you vote for the wrong candidate, it will lead the world into a thousand years of darkness.
Yes, you read that correctly...a THOUSAND YEARS OF DARKNESS if you push the wrong button in the voting booth. Apparently they're holding elections in missile silos now.
My problem isn't the foolish rhetoric, my problem is that we're whipping ourselves into this frenzy where we literally believe that the other guy will PHYSICALLY DESTROY THE WORLD. It's not a question of fiscal policy, it's a question of Arma-fucking-geddon...which means not only does no one actually ADDRESS the very relevant needs of fiscal and social policy, but also that whoever wins, a substantial percentage of the population will then start barricading themselves into underground bunkers in preparation for the Apocalypse.
Because how can we move the country forward? For weeks, months, even YEARS these people have been telling us that the "other guy" will rape and murder us. Well, the other guy won...so what do we do now? Sit down and work out logical compromises on critical issues in order to move the world forward, in spite of inevitable diversity? How can we do that with a guy that OUR loser party told us would rape and murder us?
What scares me is that, looking at the situation, I only see two ways to end this cycle. Number one, we all calm the fuck down and stop making every single issue a matter of life and death. Neither candidate is a Commu-Nazi Terrorist, regardless of whether they supported a bank or closed a school. Likewise, neither one is the reincarnation of Jesus/Ghandi/Buddha; they will inevitably do things we don't agree with. That does not make them failures or liars; it makes them people, like the rest of us.
We need to calm down, because the second option is far worse. The only other way I can think of to end this vicious Right-vs.-Left situation is to make this a world where everyone LITERALLY thinks exactly the same way...same opinions, same beliefs, same mentality. Then they'll all vote for the same person, and there will be no need for mudslinging. Or voting. Or democracy. Or people in general.
The scariest part of all is that, looking into some of these politicos' eyes, I get the disturbing feeling that they are actually looking forward to that day.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Psych Test
Picture if you will...
You're in the express line at the grocery store, three people ahead of you and maybe another three behind. The next customer has a little personal buggy, covered in opaque canvas so the contents cannot be seen. She begins to unload her selections onto the conveyor belt.
About ten items in, she looks up and sees the "1 to 8 items" sign. She looks at the sign, looks at her buggy, looks at us, shrugs and continues to unload. Items keep coming out of the buggy; 25 or 30 at least. She is no longer making eye contact with anyone, including the cashier who is looking at the rest of us with a helplessly apologetic expression.
SO...
1. What should the cashier say/do, if anything? Keep in mind her position, pay grade, and the constantly reinforced Western customer service mentality of "the asshole...sorry CUSTOMER is always right".
2. What should we, the other folks in line, say/do, if anything? What are the boundaries of politeness?
3. Based on superficial observations, what do you think the woman in line is thinking? She is not old, seems able-bodied, and is not dragging any children. Should she have moved lines? Would YOU, in the same situation? Do you think she even cares?
4. When are we, as a society, going to stop thinking about ourselves all the time and start acting like decent human beings? (Extra points if you can pinpoint this moment, give or take a century)
You're in the express line at the grocery store, three people ahead of you and maybe another three behind. The next customer has a little personal buggy, covered in opaque canvas so the contents cannot be seen. She begins to unload her selections onto the conveyor belt.
About ten items in, she looks up and sees the "1 to 8 items" sign. She looks at the sign, looks at her buggy, looks at us, shrugs and continues to unload. Items keep coming out of the buggy; 25 or 30 at least. She is no longer making eye contact with anyone, including the cashier who is looking at the rest of us with a helplessly apologetic expression.
SO...
1. What should the cashier say/do, if anything? Keep in mind her position, pay grade, and the constantly reinforced Western customer service mentality of "the asshole...sorry CUSTOMER is always right".
2. What should we, the other folks in line, say/do, if anything? What are the boundaries of politeness?
3. Based on superficial observations, what do you think the woman in line is thinking? She is not old, seems able-bodied, and is not dragging any children. Should she have moved lines? Would YOU, in the same situation? Do you think she even cares?
4. When are we, as a society, going to stop thinking about ourselves all the time and start acting like decent human beings? (Extra points if you can pinpoint this moment, give or take a century)
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
No Place Like Home
I love my apartment, I really do, but maintaining it isn't always easy.
No matter how hard I try, there will always be dust seeping through the cracks and a gradual buildup of waste that needs tending. Regular maintenance is essential to keep it in pristine condition.
Otherwise I very much enjoy my apartment; I like spending time in it, playing games, watching movies, sleeping, eating, writing pointless nothings on the computer...all in all, we spend a lot of quality time together. Even cleaning can be fun, if one is in the mood for it, play some music, get down to business...a real sense of accomplishment.
The key, as I have noted, is consistency. The apartment must be cleaned on a REGULAR basis (capitals are mine). It's amazing how fast something you love can fall apart without regular maintenance.
If I were only to work on it once a year, let's say on an 'anniversary' of cleaning, it would be a total disaster before I could even lift a broom. Even if I doubled that amount and also made a point of caring on the recurrence of the day I moved in (the apartment's 'birthday', if you will), it would be an uphill battle.
Statutory holidays wouldn't be enough, either. I also couldn't get away with 'only when there's company coming over'. No, we're talking a daily basis here...every day I must do something to keep my apartment fresh and alive.
It doesn't always have to be huge; it can be little things like keeping the dishes from piling up or wiping down the sinks after use. Closing the closet doors is a good habit, as it keeping junk off the floor (if it is, in fact, junk, it should be pitched; otherwise I must determine what the item is for and put it in the appropriate spot).
This is important. I mean, it's not like I can just move somewhere else. I've made a commitment; I have rent to pay and lots of furniture to sit on. I can't just trash the place, get tired of it, and haul my stuff elsewhere because keeping the place clean is too much 'hassle'. Like I said, I love the place.
Do you have an apartment? Or a home (mobile or stationary)? Do you take regular care of it, or do you just expect it to be clean when you get back without having to lift a finger? Do you expect it to maintain itself? Pardon me for saying, but that sounds a tad impractical...
No matter how hard I try, there will always be dust seeping through the cracks and a gradual buildup of waste that needs tending. Regular maintenance is essential to keep it in pristine condition.
Otherwise I very much enjoy my apartment; I like spending time in it, playing games, watching movies, sleeping, eating, writing pointless nothings on the computer...all in all, we spend a lot of quality time together. Even cleaning can be fun, if one is in the mood for it, play some music, get down to business...a real sense of accomplishment.
The key, as I have noted, is consistency. The apartment must be cleaned on a REGULAR basis (capitals are mine). It's amazing how fast something you love can fall apart without regular maintenance.
If I were only to work on it once a year, let's say on an 'anniversary' of cleaning, it would be a total disaster before I could even lift a broom. Even if I doubled that amount and also made a point of caring on the recurrence of the day I moved in (the apartment's 'birthday', if you will), it would be an uphill battle.
Statutory holidays wouldn't be enough, either. I also couldn't get away with 'only when there's company coming over'. No, we're talking a daily basis here...every day I must do something to keep my apartment fresh and alive.
It doesn't always have to be huge; it can be little things like keeping the dishes from piling up or wiping down the sinks after use. Closing the closet doors is a good habit, as it keeping junk off the floor (if it is, in fact, junk, it should be pitched; otherwise I must determine what the item is for and put it in the appropriate spot).
This is important. I mean, it's not like I can just move somewhere else. I've made a commitment; I have rent to pay and lots of furniture to sit on. I can't just trash the place, get tired of it, and haul my stuff elsewhere because keeping the place clean is too much 'hassle'. Like I said, I love the place.
Do you have an apartment? Or a home (mobile or stationary)? Do you take regular care of it, or do you just expect it to be clean when you get back without having to lift a finger? Do you expect it to maintain itself? Pardon me for saying, but that sounds a tad impractical...
Friday, June 29, 2012
Rainbow Connection
Seems it's been so long since I last wrote on here, they've completely changed the menu layout. Took way too long to find the "NEW POST" button...
Then again, haven't felt the rush of pithy venting for a while...
So it's pride week again, bang the drums and sound the trumpets, calling all fanatics its time to put your opinions on display for all the world to see! The more outlandish the better! Please, sign your name to something that will tarnish not only you and your own, but everyone who legitimately espouses the same dogma as you claim to!
This goes both ways, just so you know...each side of a debate has its share of people with high rage, low intellect, overdose of self-righteousness and 1 tbsp plus 1 tsp of free time. Of course, my response is: why can't I post my opinion, too? Isn't is as valid as everyone else's?
The answer is, it IS. To elaborate, my opinion should matter as much to you as everyone else's...that is, little to not-at-all. Make up your own damn mind.
But what really stimulated this upsurge is the recent furour over Oreo's decision to support the current festivities with a graphic depiction of an inappropriately multi-coloured cookie. It was a bold move, considering they've only just been forgiven their blatant attack on segregation. Even the so-called 'white' oreo was a thinly-veiled sham...I know there's still chocolate in there! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME, KRAFT!!!
What got my attention, though, is that it was the picture of the rainbow that really set people off. I personally don't know when the rainbow became a symbol of the equal-rights movement (I know it celebrates unity in diversity), but lest we forget, it has longer still had a much deeper root within the Christian faith itself.
Yes, the old boat-builder himself, Noah (of 's Ark fame) was promised by his (your, my, our) God that never again would a great disaster wipe out the world, in spite of whatever sins people might commit, and to solidify this pact a (you guessed it) rainbow was crafted in the sky...and in faith, the reason this same symbol appears after a rainstorm is as a reminder that the precipitation is only a temporary thing, never again rising to humanity-erasing levels (hey, optical physics, go straight to hell!)
Now let's examine this, shall we? Point one...God used a rainbow as a symbol. Thus, by railing against those who do the same (be they marchers or munchies) you are inadvertently railing against the same Almighty for whom you claim to be railing.
Point two...the promise. There will never be another disaster to wipe out sinners. Hear that? NEVER ANOTHER. Yeah, let's check it again, just to be sure. Oh, there it is, Genesis 9:11, NEVER ANOTHER. So please, stop wasting time and cyberspace with your prayers to 'rid the world of sinners'. Ain't gonna happen. You're stuck with the planet as is. Learn to deal.
Point three...the whole sinners thing in the first place. Let's look at Noah again. When God decided to rid the world of sinners (and right now you're thinking, great idea, all for it), he selected one good family to survive the storm. That's the carpenter himself, his wife, and three sons. (Side note: even THEY weren't all winners; one of Noah's sons was later condemned for staring at his father's boarding ramp while the old man was piss drunk. Also, Noah was apparently an alcoholic.)
So let's look at ourselves now. Ask yourself, am I that family? Am I Noah, or one of his sons? Notice Noah's parents didn't make the cut (though to be fair, they may not have been alive...the man himself was about 200). Nor is there mention of cousins, uncles, distant relations. Just the immediate family. No friends, neighbours, fellow church-goers. Five people. One family.
Out of the entire fucking world.
If there were to be another flood (impossible, of course...see point two), only five people in one family would survive. Hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure that's not me. Pretty sure it's not you, either. I can't imagine everyone in Noah's time was a murdering rapist. Might have been a few folks who just stole handkerchiefs or double-parked their donkeys. Didn't matter, though...if you weren't Mr. Perfect Noah, down the drain ye went.
Maybe, instead of condemning it, we should be extremely grateful for the rainbow. As far as I can tell of the world today, it's the only thing keeping us dry.
Then again, haven't felt the rush of pithy venting for a while...
So it's pride week again, bang the drums and sound the trumpets, calling all fanatics its time to put your opinions on display for all the world to see! The more outlandish the better! Please, sign your name to something that will tarnish not only you and your own, but everyone who legitimately espouses the same dogma as you claim to!
This goes both ways, just so you know...each side of a debate has its share of people with high rage, low intellect, overdose of self-righteousness and 1 tbsp plus 1 tsp of free time. Of course, my response is: why can't I post my opinion, too? Isn't is as valid as everyone else's?
The answer is, it IS. To elaborate, my opinion should matter as much to you as everyone else's...that is, little to not-at-all. Make up your own damn mind.
But what really stimulated this upsurge is the recent furour over Oreo's decision to support the current festivities with a graphic depiction of an inappropriately multi-coloured cookie. It was a bold move, considering they've only just been forgiven their blatant attack on segregation. Even the so-called 'white' oreo was a thinly-veiled sham...I know there's still chocolate in there! YOU CAN'T FOOL ME, KRAFT!!!
What got my attention, though, is that it was the picture of the rainbow that really set people off. I personally don't know when the rainbow became a symbol of the equal-rights movement (I know it celebrates unity in diversity), but lest we forget, it has longer still had a much deeper root within the Christian faith itself.
Yes, the old boat-builder himself, Noah (of 's Ark fame) was promised by his (your, my, our) God that never again would a great disaster wipe out the world, in spite of whatever sins people might commit, and to solidify this pact a (you guessed it) rainbow was crafted in the sky...and in faith, the reason this same symbol appears after a rainstorm is as a reminder that the precipitation is only a temporary thing, never again rising to humanity-erasing levels (hey, optical physics, go straight to hell!)
Now let's examine this, shall we? Point one...God used a rainbow as a symbol. Thus, by railing against those who do the same (be they marchers or munchies) you are inadvertently railing against the same Almighty for whom you claim to be railing.
Point two...the promise. There will never be another disaster to wipe out sinners. Hear that? NEVER ANOTHER. Yeah, let's check it again, just to be sure. Oh, there it is, Genesis 9:11, NEVER ANOTHER. So please, stop wasting time and cyberspace with your prayers to 'rid the world of sinners'. Ain't gonna happen. You're stuck with the planet as is. Learn to deal.
Point three...the whole sinners thing in the first place. Let's look at Noah again. When God decided to rid the world of sinners (and right now you're thinking, great idea, all for it), he selected one good family to survive the storm. That's the carpenter himself, his wife, and three sons. (Side note: even THEY weren't all winners; one of Noah's sons was later condemned for staring at his father's boarding ramp while the old man was piss drunk. Also, Noah was apparently an alcoholic.)
So let's look at ourselves now. Ask yourself, am I that family? Am I Noah, or one of his sons? Notice Noah's parents didn't make the cut (though to be fair, they may not have been alive...the man himself was about 200). Nor is there mention of cousins, uncles, distant relations. Just the immediate family. No friends, neighbours, fellow church-goers. Five people. One family.
Out of the entire fucking world.
If there were to be another flood (impossible, of course...see point two), only five people in one family would survive. Hate to say it, but I'm pretty sure that's not me. Pretty sure it's not you, either. I can't imagine everyone in Noah's time was a murdering rapist. Might have been a few folks who just stole handkerchiefs or double-parked their donkeys. Didn't matter, though...if you weren't Mr. Perfect Noah, down the drain ye went.
Maybe, instead of condemning it, we should be extremely grateful for the rainbow. As far as I can tell of the world today, it's the only thing keeping us dry.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Grammar Lesson
WARNING! THIS POST CONTAINS EXPLICIT CONTENT!
As a devoted student of English and, at the same time, an unrepentant s***-disturber (I'm keeping the first paragraph clean in order to post a preview without offending any online censors) I'm sad that I never came up with this until now. This would have been a wonderful submission for a grade school vocabulary test.
The Parts of Speech:
For today's lesson we are going to examine the parts of speech in the English language and, to emphasize the lesson, we will take a single word and show how its context actually determines its role in the sentence. This word is "fucking".
VERB: A word describing an action. "They were fucking all night long."
NOUN: A person, place or thing. "The sound of fucking kept him up all night."
ADJECTIVE: Describes a noun. "He is a fucking maniac."
ADVERB: Describes a verb or an adjective. "They wouldn't fucking stop" or "That was fucking insane".
INTERJECTION: Expresses emotion. "Fucking jerks!"
ARTICLE: Specifies a noun. "The man who's noisy lovemaking kept me awake." = "Fucking guy!"
Does everybody understand? Excellent. You are now ready for adulthood.
As a devoted student of English and, at the same time, an unrepentant s***-disturber (I'm keeping the first paragraph clean in order to post a preview without offending any online censors) I'm sad that I never came up with this until now. This would have been a wonderful submission for a grade school vocabulary test.
The Parts of Speech:
For today's lesson we are going to examine the parts of speech in the English language and, to emphasize the lesson, we will take a single word and show how its context actually determines its role in the sentence. This word is "fucking".
VERB: A word describing an action. "They were fucking all night long."
NOUN: A person, place or thing. "The sound of fucking kept him up all night."
ADJECTIVE: Describes a noun. "He is a fucking maniac."
ADVERB: Describes a verb or an adjective. "They wouldn't fucking stop" or "That was fucking insane".
INTERJECTION: Expresses emotion. "Fucking jerks!"
ARTICLE: Specifies a noun. "The man who's noisy lovemaking kept me awake." = "Fucking guy!"
Does everybody understand? Excellent. You are now ready for adulthood.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Healthy Debate
So the Ontario government wants to make Physical Education mandatory until Grade 12. Let's not beat about the bush...here are a half a dozen reasons why this is a stupid idea:
1. Gym facilities in Ontario schools cannot accommodate every single enrolled student. Because phys. ed. has been, for most students, a drop-as-soon-as-possible course, tracks and pools and sports arenas have been constructed as needed and no more. To build adequate facilities to give every student in Ontario a PROPER (note the capitalization) exercise regimen would cost a great deal of money that I, frankly, do not want my taxes being wasted on.
2. We've already cut high school down to four years. That's barely enough time to complete required courses for any major university program (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.). If a largely unnecessary course became mandatory, any student who wanted to get a good university admission without completely burning out would probably have to take a fifth year, again costing the taxpayer more money. ADDENDUM: Universities tend to look down on people who take extra years of high school and/or have phys. ed. on their transcript (the stereotype is, of course, that they must not be that bright). Ontario students are therefore being handicapped in the race for admissions.
3. If you want to improve children's health, a standardized one-size-fits-all school program is possibly the worst way. Affordable, accessible, and above all ENJOYABLE after-school sports programs are a much better option. Forcing everyone to play basketball, even those who hate or aren't good at basketball, is beyond pointless. Allowing each child to choose a sport and/or activity that they're actually interested in...hmm, maybe they'd put more effort into that? Am I mistaken?
4. We are no longer allowed to fail students in public education. That's right, even if you're dumb, we don't want you to feel bad about it so we won't make you look foolish by being the only 15-year-old in grade seven. I'm not saying whether this is a bad thing or a good thing...but it should at least be consistent. I was an overweight, nonathletic high school student. If we can't embarrass the dumb kids, why must we force the fat kids to wear embarrassingly tight track shorts and jiggle sweatily around a track for forty minutes a day?
5. There's a reason that the antagonists in pretty much all high school movies are the gym teachers/coaches. I'm not saying they're all evil...but the 99% that are give the other 1% a bad name.
6. Phys. Ed. classes do not make you healthy, especially required ones. Everyone I know (myself included) who has lost a significant amount of weight has done so on a self-motivated basis. If you really want to get healthy, you will go out and do it yourself. Even military enrolment is voluntary. Good health cannot be forced.
Obviously I'm against this on a personal level because...well, because I hate phys. ed. But I think I've made some pretty reasonable arguments here. If you're the political type, and this actually does come on the table, please ask your MPP to at least think it through. Health is important, no question. Obesity and heart disease are serious problems in our society, no argument here. But there's a difference between ANY solution and the RIGHT solution. Mandatory gym classes may be the former, but they are most definitely not the latter.
1. Gym facilities in Ontario schools cannot accommodate every single enrolled student. Because phys. ed. has been, for most students, a drop-as-soon-as-possible course, tracks and pools and sports arenas have been constructed as needed and no more. To build adequate facilities to give every student in Ontario a PROPER (note the capitalization) exercise regimen would cost a great deal of money that I, frankly, do not want my taxes being wasted on.
2. We've already cut high school down to four years. That's barely enough time to complete required courses for any major university program (doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc.). If a largely unnecessary course became mandatory, any student who wanted to get a good university admission without completely burning out would probably have to take a fifth year, again costing the taxpayer more money. ADDENDUM: Universities tend to look down on people who take extra years of high school and/or have phys. ed. on their transcript (the stereotype is, of course, that they must not be that bright). Ontario students are therefore being handicapped in the race for admissions.
3. If you want to improve children's health, a standardized one-size-fits-all school program is possibly the worst way. Affordable, accessible, and above all ENJOYABLE after-school sports programs are a much better option. Forcing everyone to play basketball, even those who hate or aren't good at basketball, is beyond pointless. Allowing each child to choose a sport and/or activity that they're actually interested in...hmm, maybe they'd put more effort into that? Am I mistaken?
4. We are no longer allowed to fail students in public education. That's right, even if you're dumb, we don't want you to feel bad about it so we won't make you look foolish by being the only 15-year-old in grade seven. I'm not saying whether this is a bad thing or a good thing...but it should at least be consistent. I was an overweight, nonathletic high school student. If we can't embarrass the dumb kids, why must we force the fat kids to wear embarrassingly tight track shorts and jiggle sweatily around a track for forty minutes a day?
5. There's a reason that the antagonists in pretty much all high school movies are the gym teachers/coaches. I'm not saying they're all evil...but the 99% that are give the other 1% a bad name.
6. Phys. Ed. classes do not make you healthy, especially required ones. Everyone I know (myself included) who has lost a significant amount of weight has done so on a self-motivated basis. If you really want to get healthy, you will go out and do it yourself. Even military enrolment is voluntary. Good health cannot be forced.
Obviously I'm against this on a personal level because...well, because I hate phys. ed. But I think I've made some pretty reasonable arguments here. If you're the political type, and this actually does come on the table, please ask your MPP to at least think it through. Health is important, no question. Obesity and heart disease are serious problems in our society, no argument here. But there's a difference between ANY solution and the RIGHT solution. Mandatory gym classes may be the former, but they are most definitely not the latter.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
A Short Post
Not usually one for this, today I found myself addicted to a rather lengthy online thread populated primarily by two repeated posters. One was a member of Occupy Canada, speaking out against fascism in all its forms. The other was an individual who disagreed with the first and his ideas, believing that Canada is nowhere near the level of a true fascist state and that the Occupy movement is an over-exaggerated waste of time.
The point, however, is not the arguments. The point is that the Occupy Canada representative made clear, well-reasoned arguments where premise led to conclusion, responded to each counter-argument succinctly and consecutively, and demonstrated a decent command of the English language. His opponent, on the other hand, peppered his comebacks with swear words, personal insults, and every fourth or fifth word of each paragraph was misspelled.
For Christmas, I received a book that transcribed the recent Toronto-based public debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion. I loved the present as it touched two of my deepest passions: 1. Theological Debate, and 2. Feeling smarter than people. This second one became more prevalent the further I read.
Granted, the time allotted for each argument was brief (first problem, right there...seriously, five thousand years of human development and we come to "tell me how religion has made the world better/worse in five minutes or less". You're basically inviting immature argument...or worse, snappy sound-bytes, but more on that later). Still, one would have hoped that two of the most advanced minds of our time could have come up with something even slightly orginal.
Blair: "Love"
Hitchens: "War"
Blair: "Aid in Africa"
Hitchens: "AIDS in Africa"
Blair: "Mother Teresa"
Hitchens: "Mother Teresa" (that one was at least slightly clever)
It went on as such for the duration. I lost count of how many times they brought up Israel and Ireland. It isn't that these aren't important points, to be sure, but they aren't particularly original. Worse, they aren't really points that can be argued with. No one is going to argue against Charity and in favour of Genocide. (Simpsons Season 4: "Amber, do you think the bill of rights is a good thing or a bad thing?" "Um......GOOD thing [bats eyelashes]"). The purpose of the debate was to argue the cause, not the effect. If they had really wanted to convince me, one or other of them should have been arguing that religion was what INSPIRED the things they were talking about (good or bad, depending on the viewpoint). But in the total of twenty minutes they each had, they barely even scratched the surface.
The fact is, argument is dead. It's been a moderately-paced process, confined largely to the latter half of the twentieth century. Can you imagine a time (and it did exist) when crowds gathered in town halls to watch a two-hour debate? In the nineteenth century, that was a "movie"! The advent of television brought the same info-tainment into the home, but the results were unexpected...suddenly the content of the argument mattered less than how the speaker looked on camera. 24-hour news reels (which I have previously lambasted) made it necessary to not only always have an off-the-cuff remark, but frequently to become mindlessly repetitive when original ideas ran dry. Human beings became broken records, even after they didn't use records anymore.
And now we have the internet. Unregulated, ungoverned. There are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). This is a wonderful thing; it means that debate is no longer confined to people with political power or money. If you have a good idea, there is an inexpensive way to make it public (i.e. beyond your drinking buddies). This is what enables the so-called 99% to be heard.
But there's a problem...there are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). And if you make an argument that I don't like, no matter how well-thought out or reasoned, I can come back with "Ya well u r a idiott" and post it at the same level, in the same font and style as whatever you have written. And if you're pure of heart, you will dismiss it and continue with your intellectual defence. Then again, after 1785 posts of the same derogatory slur (oh, forgot to mention, there are no time limits; you can post as often as you want, all that matters is your upload speed) you, too, might become worn out and drop down to my level.
Suddenly, "x+y=z" becomes "Your a f***ING idiot" (try getting away with that in a math class). It's retroactive, too...look at the Republican debates on television these days. What had once been a forum for educated discussion has degenerated to the same cynical mudslinging one would expect on a Facebook wall. Who can say the most pithy, memorable thing in the least amount of time? It's one of the worst fallacies in debate: attacking the debater instead of their argument. And it seems to be the order of the day.
There are reasons for this, of course, many reasons. It easier to curse at someone than to actually sit down and think out a reasonable statement. There are so many public forums nowadays that you almost HAVE to reduce your arguments to a single sentence; otherwise people will scroll down to the next item. No one bothers to read anything of length (frankly, I'm very impressed that you've gotten this far! Good for you, mate!). And, of course, the real bugbear of society...lack of proper education. No one argues properly because no one is taught how, and the standard is not maintained in the world at large.
Please, please, PLEASE make a counter-argument to anything I've said that you disagree with. And PLEASE make it even more long-winded than I am, full of big words that I need to look up in a dictionary...because debate is, at the end of the day, about learning things beyond what is contained in your own mind. You don't have to agree with your opponent...but just maybe the process will open you to new ideas that you otherwise would never have had.
And please, everybody, use the damn apostrophe key. It's getting lonely.
The point, however, is not the arguments. The point is that the Occupy Canada representative made clear, well-reasoned arguments where premise led to conclusion, responded to each counter-argument succinctly and consecutively, and demonstrated a decent command of the English language. His opponent, on the other hand, peppered his comebacks with swear words, personal insults, and every fourth or fifth word of each paragraph was misspelled.
For Christmas, I received a book that transcribed the recent Toronto-based public debate between Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens on the subject of religion. I loved the present as it touched two of my deepest passions: 1. Theological Debate, and 2. Feeling smarter than people. This second one became more prevalent the further I read.
Granted, the time allotted for each argument was brief (first problem, right there...seriously, five thousand years of human development and we come to "tell me how religion has made the world better/worse in five minutes or less". You're basically inviting immature argument...or worse, snappy sound-bytes, but more on that later). Still, one would have hoped that two of the most advanced minds of our time could have come up with something even slightly orginal.
Blair: "Love"
Hitchens: "War"
Blair: "Aid in Africa"
Hitchens: "AIDS in Africa"
Blair: "Mother Teresa"
Hitchens: "Mother Teresa" (that one was at least slightly clever)
It went on as such for the duration. I lost count of how many times they brought up Israel and Ireland. It isn't that these aren't important points, to be sure, but they aren't particularly original. Worse, they aren't really points that can be argued with. No one is going to argue against Charity and in favour of Genocide. (Simpsons Season 4: "Amber, do you think the bill of rights is a good thing or a bad thing?" "Um......GOOD thing [bats eyelashes]"). The purpose of the debate was to argue the cause, not the effect. If they had really wanted to convince me, one or other of them should have been arguing that religion was what INSPIRED the things they were talking about (good or bad, depending on the viewpoint). But in the total of twenty minutes they each had, they barely even scratched the surface.
The fact is, argument is dead. It's been a moderately-paced process, confined largely to the latter half of the twentieth century. Can you imagine a time (and it did exist) when crowds gathered in town halls to watch a two-hour debate? In the nineteenth century, that was a "movie"! The advent of television brought the same info-tainment into the home, but the results were unexpected...suddenly the content of the argument mattered less than how the speaker looked on camera. 24-hour news reels (which I have previously lambasted) made it necessary to not only always have an off-the-cuff remark, but frequently to become mindlessly repetitive when original ideas ran dry. Human beings became broken records, even after they didn't use records anymore.
And now we have the internet. Unregulated, ungoverned. There are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). This is a wonderful thing; it means that debate is no longer confined to people with political power or money. If you have a good idea, there is an inexpensive way to make it public (i.e. beyond your drinking buddies). This is what enables the so-called 99% to be heard.
But there's a problem...there are no rules, no guidelines. Anyone who wants to can splash their opinion out there for all to see (yes, I know, myself included). And if you make an argument that I don't like, no matter how well-thought out or reasoned, I can come back with "Ya well u r a idiott" and post it at the same level, in the same font and style as whatever you have written. And if you're pure of heart, you will dismiss it and continue with your intellectual defence. Then again, after 1785 posts of the same derogatory slur (oh, forgot to mention, there are no time limits; you can post as often as you want, all that matters is your upload speed) you, too, might become worn out and drop down to my level.
Suddenly, "x+y=z" becomes "Your a f***ING idiot" (try getting away with that in a math class). It's retroactive, too...look at the Republican debates on television these days. What had once been a forum for educated discussion has degenerated to the same cynical mudslinging one would expect on a Facebook wall. Who can say the most pithy, memorable thing in the least amount of time? It's one of the worst fallacies in debate: attacking the debater instead of their argument. And it seems to be the order of the day.
There are reasons for this, of course, many reasons. It easier to curse at someone than to actually sit down and think out a reasonable statement. There are so many public forums nowadays that you almost HAVE to reduce your arguments to a single sentence; otherwise people will scroll down to the next item. No one bothers to read anything of length (frankly, I'm very impressed that you've gotten this far! Good for you, mate!). And, of course, the real bugbear of society...lack of proper education. No one argues properly because no one is taught how, and the standard is not maintained in the world at large.
Please, please, PLEASE make a counter-argument to anything I've said that you disagree with. And PLEASE make it even more long-winded than I am, full of big words that I need to look up in a dictionary...because debate is, at the end of the day, about learning things beyond what is contained in your own mind. You don't have to agree with your opponent...but just maybe the process will open you to new ideas that you otherwise would never have had.
And please, everybody, use the damn apostrophe key. It's getting lonely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)