Posts
Nine months ago I retired to follow my wife's job to Mississippi. And while my personal life is wonderful, my mental health is good and my emotions are generally upbeat, I am constantly bombarded with negatives from my environment.
For example, the person or persons who installed a red top on the hot water pipe behind the washer. And the person or persons who installed a red top on the cold water pipe behind the washer. Everywhere I turn in Mississippi I see incompetence and stupidity acted out in front of me. So much so that my normally seemingly inexhaustible rage seems to be... exhausted.
Being retired leaves me more time on line. Previous virtually all of my online reading was technical in nature, keeping up in my profession and the technologies in use in my profession. Slashdot was pretty much the only news-oriented type site which I read and mostly because Slashdot is a good site to keep a general eye on the type of technology with which I worked. For the last nine months I've read much more widely than that, and I have to tell you, a few hours following links on the internet and reading post and comments and even the most jaded stupidity hater will end up slack jawed in disbelief at the level of stupidity expressed in the opinions and ramblings stored on the servers of the world. I've read rants so ridiculous and delirious that the poster thinking they were the Emperor Napoleon would be one step closer to reality for them. People that make even my old college buddy, the one who thought he had a magical high school ring, seem sane.
There are some exceptions. I've found the world of atheist blogging, where the majority of posters are sane and reasonable and intelligent. Recently on alternet.org I read the following article http://tinyurl.com/dy53hj If "mainstream" religious nuts are dropping out, either turning more to the rational or the more extreme evangelical nuts, then there is a widening gap between those choosing to live in reality as much as possible and those choosing to live in fantasy as much as possible.
In Mississippi you still see, in the general population, the vast difference between rich and poor that dates all the back to the Civil war, and the US history of favoring large accumulations of capital (and how the oligarchs who make decisions of those accumulations of capital take advantage of the US political system) means that the huge socioeconomic gap in Mississippi is being mirrored all over the country.
Our current President is articulate, and this gets him charged as "elitist." Is stupidity now a goal? Are we headed for the society at the opening of Kornbluth's "March of the Morons?"
We are not melting anymore. We are separating. One of Heinlein's characters once opined that whatever particular government you instituted didn't really matter as long as there were sufficient avenues for advancement by merit. "Merit" is now not only running behind wealth and connections (which it pretty much always has), but it is now under attack by "spin" and "image" (again, backed by money). When attempts to correct information in the public sphere only end up serving to reinforce the original false claims, where are we as a society?
The fact of the matter is, most people cannot handle facts. (Consider the creationists flopping all across the public sphere, pretending that they are scientists.) If more people are working with fantasy rather than reality, then more than the US banking and mortgage industry is due to be reacquainted with Kipling's "Gods of the Copybook Headings":
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Home schooling (for now the answer is "no")
As an atheist (and as what in todays terms would be an exceptionally globally gifted youngster who was radically advanced 5 grades and still ended up bored) home schooling is something I've considered for my little girl, currently 2 1/2. In our former home of Lexington, KY the top rated pre-school in the city was a secular one. The closest thing to that which we've found in Jackson, MS is the public school Montessori, which she'll be entering next fall.
Since my spouse is Episcopalian, my daughter is already exposed to imaginary friends, so atheism isn't a strong motivator for me when it comes to considering home schooling. I'm much more worried about her intelligence. It's too early to tell if she'll inherit my global gifts, but at 2 1/2 she's probably averaging 6-10 words per sentence, often ranging up into 15-20 word sentences with grammatically correct conditional clauses.
Exceptionally gifted children don't really need school to learn. (When asked how I managed to get a 31 composite on the ACT at the age of 11 I always answered, "I read science fiction.") As a former college instructor with an extensive liberal arts background, I wouldn't worry so much about providing my daughter with sufficient academic preparation for college. (Although MOST of the resources that I skimmed in thinking about this are Christian-centric.)
In some of the studies that I've been reading lately it looks like structured radical advancement has the most benefits for really smart kids, and most of that benefit seems to come from the social opportunities of interacting with people on your own level of thinking. (As one researcher put it, no one expects to mainstream a child with an IQ of 40, why should we assume that a child with an IQ of 160 should be mainstreamed?) Public schools are, as vjack says (http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/atheist-homeschooling.html), centers for social instruction, but that doesn't ALWAYS mean that the social aspects are beneficial (although those aspects certainly CAN be in some, perhaps most, cases).
My own daughter is extremely social. She stayed at home the first few months after we moved to Mississippi, but kept asking to go to daycare (which she'd done before I retired). She simply finds being around lots of other children absolutely fascinating. She emotionally craves that contact. At this point, for my daughter, home schooling isn't currently an option. As a rationalist, of course, new evidence can always lead to change.
I think that the real question for atheists when it comes to home schooling is, "What causes more damage? Socializing with children who are very, very different (either in intelligence or in world view), or having very limited socializing until the dangerous late-teens?" I have trouble believing that any child who is too far off the "norm" can emerge unscathed from childhood, and I think that all parents should navigate their individual courses based on the circumstances that confront them. (Duh!)
Since my spouse is Episcopalian, my daughter is already exposed to imaginary friends, so atheism isn't a strong motivator for me when it comes to considering home schooling. I'm much more worried about her intelligence. It's too early to tell if she'll inherit my global gifts, but at 2 1/2 she's probably averaging 6-10 words per sentence, often ranging up into 15-20 word sentences with grammatically correct conditional clauses.
Exceptionally gifted children don't really need school to learn. (When asked how I managed to get a 31 composite on the ACT at the age of 11 I always answered, "I read science fiction.") As a former college instructor with an extensive liberal arts background, I wouldn't worry so much about providing my daughter with sufficient academic preparation for college. (Although MOST of the resources that I skimmed in thinking about this are Christian-centric.)
In some of the studies that I've been reading lately it looks like structured radical advancement has the most benefits for really smart kids, and most of that benefit seems to come from the social opportunities of interacting with people on your own level of thinking. (As one researcher put it, no one expects to mainstream a child with an IQ of 40, why should we assume that a child with an IQ of 160 should be mainstreamed?) Public schools are, as vjack says (http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/03/atheist-homeschooling.html), centers for social instruction, but that doesn't ALWAYS mean that the social aspects are beneficial (although those aspects certainly CAN be in some, perhaps most, cases).
My own daughter is extremely social. She stayed at home the first few months after we moved to Mississippi, but kept asking to go to daycare (which she'd done before I retired). She simply finds being around lots of other children absolutely fascinating. She emotionally craves that contact. At this point, for my daughter, home schooling isn't currently an option. As a rationalist, of course, new evidence can always lead to change.
I think that the real question for atheists when it comes to home schooling is, "What causes more damage? Socializing with children who are very, very different (either in intelligence or in world view), or having very limited socializing until the dangerous late-teens?" I have trouble believing that any child who is too far off the "norm" can emerge unscathed from childhood, and I think that all parents should navigate their individual courses based on the circumstances that confront them. (Duh!)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Words versus violence
I've never been a violent man. As a little Pompotini there were a few acts of discreet violence, but always in defense of someone else. I never had to physically protect myself because I always found that threats and intimidation were sufficient to forestall actual violence. (Which causes me to question some of the extremes that school systems these days go to in order to stop threats of violence. But I digress.
After growing from a Pompotini into a Pompotous, I've engaged in violence twice: once in taking a knife away from a rather rude man trying to rob it by pointing at my throat, once in response to a muscle-bound teenager who thought to beat the crap out of me for working at a place he'd been fired from. In both cases my assailants fled the scene in distress, and I was not actually hurt, but the feelings engendered by the violence, the fear, the breakdown of coherent consciousness when staring at a butcher knife in the hands of someone screaming at me, those impressions remain with me.
I could have killed them rather than driven them away with few hurts to anything other than their pride -- but I am not a violent man, although I capable of using it in its minimum forms when necessary. Had I not thought myself capable of inflicting harm under certain circumstances I would never have joined the armed forces of the US in my youth.
I have been the target of words and the target of blows and knife thrusts, and it still amazes me that there are people who equate words with violence. In graduate school I ran across a woman who, when I asked her if she would rather be called a "bitch" or shot in the face with a .45 caliber pistol, replied, "I don't know, words hurt for so long." This linking of words with violence has a following of sorts in the business world as well, particularly with sexual harassment consultants. In the latter case this is, perhaps, a case of frantically reaching for an argument that will be explain the seriousness of sexual harassment to the kind of microcephalic morons who might commit it, but I think not.
Take, for example, section 295A of the Indian Penal Code: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Pardon me, but the politicians that passed this, and the theists who utilize it, are lame fuckwits. 295a IPC assumes that words are dangerous. There are very, very few cases where I'll agree that words are dangerous, and they all involve violence in some form or another. Saying that you are a fuckwit with a ridiculous imaginary friend -- does that break any of your bones? Ignite your possessions and turn them to ash? In any way resemble stereo wire connected to your alternated, twisted and run into your gas tank?
No. There is a qualitative difference between words and violence. Words directly leading to real harm -- such as Manson telling his followers to kill someone, or shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, thereby being sure to cause a few injuries in the attempts to exit the building, are few and far between, and certainly don't include things like making fun of some made-up characters in a book.
It is not words that are dangerous, it is power: the power to get someone to murder for you, the power to manipulate people into acts of violence upon themselves, the power to terrify a subordinate into putting up with sexual advances. You have little choice in how your body will deal with a bullet to the head, your mind has much choice in how to deal with someone calling you a name. When power and circumstances take away your choice, that is when speech is dangerous and calls for censure.
So for all those religionists out there who cry out at the horrors of saying, "Hey, you're an irrational idiot about this whole religion thing, aren't you?" I say, "Shove it." If a Christian burns down your Christian church (which is almost certainly the most likely church burning in the US), then you are the victim of violence and should be entitled to justice. If a teenager in a car shouts, "There is no God, chill the fuck out!" as he drives past your church, you have no cause for complaint.
,
After growing from a Pompotini into a Pompotous, I've engaged in violence twice: once in taking a knife away from a rather rude man trying to rob it by pointing at my throat, once in response to a muscle-bound teenager who thought to beat the crap out of me for working at a place he'd been fired from. In both cases my assailants fled the scene in distress, and I was not actually hurt, but the feelings engendered by the violence, the fear, the breakdown of coherent consciousness when staring at a butcher knife in the hands of someone screaming at me, those impressions remain with me.
I could have killed them rather than driven them away with few hurts to anything other than their pride -- but I am not a violent man, although I capable of using it in its minimum forms when necessary. Had I not thought myself capable of inflicting harm under certain circumstances I would never have joined the armed forces of the US in my youth.
I have been the target of words and the target of blows and knife thrusts, and it still amazes me that there are people who equate words with violence. In graduate school I ran across a woman who, when I asked her if she would rather be called a "bitch" or shot in the face with a .45 caliber pistol, replied, "I don't know, words hurt for so long." This linking of words with violence has a following of sorts in the business world as well, particularly with sexual harassment consultants. In the latter case this is, perhaps, a case of frantically reaching for an argument that will be explain the seriousness of sexual harassment to the kind of microcephalic morons who might commit it, but I think not.
Take, for example, section 295A of the Indian Penal Code: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Pardon me, but the politicians that passed this, and the theists who utilize it, are lame fuckwits. 295a IPC assumes that words are dangerous. There are very, very few cases where I'll agree that words are dangerous, and they all involve violence in some form or another. Saying that you are a fuckwit with a ridiculous imaginary friend -- does that break any of your bones? Ignite your possessions and turn them to ash? In any way resemble stereo wire connected to your alternated, twisted and run into your gas tank?
No. There is a qualitative difference between words and violence. Words directly leading to real harm -- such as Manson telling his followers to kill someone, or shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, thereby being sure to cause a few injuries in the attempts to exit the building, are few and far between, and certainly don't include things like making fun of some made-up characters in a book.
It is not words that are dangerous, it is power: the power to get someone to murder for you, the power to manipulate people into acts of violence upon themselves, the power to terrify a subordinate into putting up with sexual advances. You have little choice in how your body will deal with a bullet to the head, your mind has much choice in how to deal with someone calling you a name. When power and circumstances take away your choice, that is when speech is dangerous and calls for censure.
So for all those religionists out there who cry out at the horrors of saying, "Hey, you're an irrational idiot about this whole religion thing, aren't you?" I say, "Shove it." If a Christian burns down your Christian church (which is almost certainly the most likely church burning in the US), then you are the victim of violence and should be entitled to justice. If a teenager in a car shouts, "There is no God, chill the fuck out!" as he drives past your church, you have no cause for complaint.
,
Monday, March 2, 2009
Barbarians
My heart goes out to my Indian friends. Apparently it is a crime to tell the truth about religions in India. This article in the Independent gives sufficient explanation and information for further pursuit of the situation: http://tinyurl.com/bny9ma
Who knew that such a disgusting law existed in India? Not I. But the law isn't the extent of the shamefulness in this case, apparently some barbaric Muslims blocked roads and attacked policeman in response to the reprinting of the article by Johann Hari. And why did these ridiculous people turn to violence? Because someone wrote a few words about someone long dead? Allah, like all other god(s)ess(es) is, of course, completely fictional, but if he weren't, if he were real, wouldn't you think that his Prophet on Earth could stand up to a little name calling? Five year olds stand being called names on the playground every day, but this Prophet fellow gets his nose out of joint to the point of violence over nothing but words? And accurate words at that? My, my, what a baby. And what a stupid bunch of followers this baby must have if violence is their answer to speech.
We have our own barbarians here in America, primarily of the Christian stripe. For the most part our religious violence is sly, hidden and isolated, and our govenrment organs, particularly the police, are fiercely protective of their theoretical monopoly on large scale violence. So we export most of the violence. (Hi, Iraq! How ya' doin'?)
Barbarians. So many, many barbarians. To Johann Hari, and, more importantly, to Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha I send my respect and my sympathy and my admiration. Good luck, and thank you for your actions. The world needs more people like you.
Who knew that such a disgusting law existed in India? Not I. But the law isn't the extent of the shamefulness in this case, apparently some barbaric Muslims blocked roads and attacked policeman in response to the reprinting of the article by Johann Hari. And why did these ridiculous people turn to violence? Because someone wrote a few words about someone long dead? Allah, like all other god(s)ess(es) is, of course, completely fictional, but if he weren't, if he were real, wouldn't you think that his Prophet on Earth could stand up to a little name calling? Five year olds stand being called names on the playground every day, but this Prophet fellow gets his nose out of joint to the point of violence over nothing but words? And accurate words at that? My, my, what a baby. And what a stupid bunch of followers this baby must have if violence is their answer to speech.
We have our own barbarians here in America, primarily of the Christian stripe. For the most part our religious violence is sly, hidden and isolated, and our govenrment organs, particularly the police, are fiercely protective of their theoretical monopoly on large scale violence. So we export most of the violence. (Hi, Iraq! How ya' doin'?)
Barbarians. So many, many barbarians. To Johann Hari, and, more importantly, to Ravindra Kumar and Anand Sinha I send my respect and my sympathy and my admiration. Good luck, and thank you for your actions. The world needs more people like you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)