Think About It! – Page 5

The Rest of Life

December 3, 2014

There’s a quote by Neil deGrasse Tyson floating around, from an appearance with Bill Maher a few years ago, where he recalls noticing that the backgrounds of many Congressmen and Senators is law. And that he wondered “where are the scientists? where are the engineers? where is the rest of life represented?”

I’ll admit when I started writing this, already intending to speak on this quote, I hadn’t heard/seen the quote in context. When searching for the exact text, I instead found the above-linked video and heard his whole spiel. He precedes the above discussing that, with all these politicians having a law background, being trained specifically to argue, they are trained to basically argue their side and never come to an agreement. Okay, I may or may not be summarizing it well. Just watch the video and let him speak for himself!

The context doesn’t change what I intended to say, though. In fact, it just confirms it. He asks where the scientists and engineers are. I’ll tell you where they are… being awesome scientists and engineers and not wasting their time with political bullshit!

You know what’s extremely expensive? Scientific research. Even the smallest simplest research is really damn expensive, let alone the dizzying costs of medical research or the astronomical costs of, well, space exploration. But it’s all worth it, even the research that turns out to be a dead end, because it’s the noblest cause of all. It’s gaining information and developing things with that information to make our lives better, to advance, to reach untold unimagined heights. There is no greater investment in humanity and in, well, all of life and the universe.

By contrast, you know what else is really expensive? Political campaigns. Politicians are always raising money to beat the crap out of their opponent. We’ve got people dying from cancer, Ebola, AIDS, and countless other maladies and afflictions, which many millions spent in research can do something about. What do politicians spend millions on? Running mind-numbing advertisements calling their opponents douchebags.

So I’d say we’re better off with the scientists and engineers continuing to be scientists and engineers!

Of course, before I heard the rest of Tyson’s speech, my point was going to pretty much end there. He’s right, though. It makes sense. Politicians are trained to argue incessantly, so that’s exactly what they are doing, with their campaign funds, with their House and Senate votes. They don’t want to make the world better. They just want to pretend they do in order to get money and votes, in order to beat the Other Guy, to defeat the Other Party.

He’s implying that, if more politicians had backgrounds in science and other fields, we may have politicians who don’t have that urge, who are more interested in facts and solutions and improvement than in demolishing one another. It’s certainly plausible, right?

Then I remember Ben Carson, former neurosurgeon now vocal Tea Partier who may or may not try to run for President in 2016, who equated ObamaCare with slavery.

Yeah, never mind. :irked:

Supporting the Rights But Not the Gay?

November 28, 2014

So over the past week or so, I saw a couple of articles claiming that a survey found that many straight people who support same-sex marriage are still uncomfortable with public displays of affection by same-sex couples, moreso than by straight couples. On one hand, this sounds like just another case of cognitively knowing something is right (equal rights for same-sex couples, in this case) while personally not really caring for it for whatever reasons. Obviously, the latter feeling is not harmless, as this still promotes a heteronormative society and worldview that continues to marginalize LGBT people.

However, I see something more going on here, and it doesn’t surprise me at all. Sure, those who support rights but don’t want to witness “the gayness” might just be uninformed and on their way to greater acceptance. But something like this might call into question why such people support gay rights if they are so uncomfortable with it.

If their support for LGBT rights does not come from support for LGBT people and life, then perhaps it really only comes from opposition to homophobia. Opposition to homophobia, or more specifically the types of people who are or are more likely to be homophobic, is NOT the same thing as support for LGBT people. I mean, it’s an important part of it, definitely. But it’s nowhere near all there is to it. Truly supporting marginalized people involves a lot more soul searching and radical change than simply disliking the correct people.

I’ll touch on this again at some point (it’s almost December, after all!), and have to some degree already, but it’s just yet another example of people confusing hate with love, mudslinging with progress.

But, in the case here, it might in fact just be, as said, people still on their way to better understanding how to be properly supportive of LGBT people who haven’t quite gotten there yet. And even just supporting the legal rights is still hugely helpful. It’s just important to keep in mind that proper support for people cannot be based on hate, and to be careful that growing support doesn’t veer into that direction. It’s a sad place to be and ultimately defeating.

Metrication

September 9, 2014

Why the hell do we say “a thousand kilometers”? Why don’t we say “one megameter”? Because it sounds weird? It only sounds weird because it’s not in common use. The metric system comes with all these lovely prefixes for whichever power of ten off the basic unit you’re using, but for some reason we limit ourselves roughly to kilo and milli, if that. Centi only gets to shine when followed by meter. I see 10 milliliter containers and such quite a bit, but never once is it called “one centiliter”. Why not? That’s what it is, isn’t it? Even considering the circumstantial necessity of keeping decimal places constant, you’d think it might show up at least sometimes. And I never see any big vats of things labeled as “one kiloliter”.

Distance from Earth to the Sun? About 150 million kilometers? Pfft. What do you need all them extra decimal places for? Try 150 gigameters!

Why should bytes have all the fun?

Don’t even get me started on the sheer neglect suffered by all 10 centimeters of the decimeter. Or of all 100 meters of the hectometer, who only seems to show up when squared. You know, it’s a hectometer and it’s a square so it’s a… wait for it… hectare! I totally get it! 😀

Although metric ton does sound more badass than megagram. Metric ton is also the basis of the fun-to-say metric fuckton. Does megafuckgram have the same ring to it? These are the important questions.

Isn’t this fun? Hell, I haven’t even gotten to our lovely little friends micro and nano, who make some tiny scientific appearances, such as the ever-present 200µL (that’s right, mu not u!) pipette tips. But these prefixes get their attention where warranted. They just don’t come up often in common use because things tend to be bigger than that. They’re just hiding out at the cellular and molecular levels. Biding their time.

So, yeah, that’s the beauty of the metric system. For the super super super big and the super super super small, there’s a prefix to fit your measuring needs! Yay metrication!

Now if only we could go the whole nine ya- er, the whole 823 centimeters, and give some of these prefixes more attention.

Failing that, might as well be using imperial! Maybe I’ll start referring to a thousand inches as a kiloinch… :cute:

Offend the Offensive

July 28, 2014

Quick! Define “offensive”.

Okay, okay, okay, shut up…

Whatever it is you just said, my answer would be different. So would everyone else’s. What is offensive is subjective. And, whether some want to admit it or not, absolutely everyone is offended by something.

There are a number of things that tout themselves as being proudly “offensive”. South Park was once a prime example. These days, there are a number of Facebook pages with taglines saying something like “If something on this page offends you, ha ha, too bad! Go punch your parents for having raised a pussy.”

Such messages tell me nothing about what is on that page. Why do they think one might find their content offensive? They say “fuck” sometimes? They mention sex? Irreverent humor? I’m not offended by any of that. Hell, the things that offend me are often found in places that deem themselves inoffensive. The radio station I wake up to is the local generic Clear Channel light pop station (97.1 WASH here in DC), and it offends me quite a bit. This is a station that cuts the word “screwed” out of Gotye’s “Somebody that I Used to Know”, and yet, I still find some of the DJs’ commentary offensive. Almost entirely, what’s offensive is their remarks are grossly anti-youth.

And here’s the other thing. It’s worth looking into WHY something is offensive. Sometimes it in fact is someone being oversensitive, as there are some pretty damn stupid things people find offensive. My being offended at ageism is unusual, in that not too many other people find it offensive, and they might consider me oversensitive. Well, there’s a reason I take offense at ageism, and that is not only that ageism is wrong, but not enough people know that, and hearing ageism promoted so much just encourages and perpetuates it. Of course, the real harm and wrongness of ageism is what a complaint about such commentary would be based on, not simply the fact that I find it offensive.

If someone says something is offensive, the correct response is to ask why, not to simply say “shut up, you’re oversensitive”. That’s the difference between communicating and being an asshole.

Some that say they’re proudly offensive turn out to mean they’re proudly bigoted. Or maybe not necessarily bigoted, but they might frequently use racial or other slurs jokingly in their posts and images. They might take shots at women or the disabled. Basically, anyone who isn’t an able-bodied white straight cis male. Funny how that works out. They think they’re so badass espousing prejudices that most people already have.

In fact, if you were to point this out to these people, you know how they’d react? That’s right. They’d be offended. They’d pretend they aren’t. They say the idiotic well-worn “I’m offended by those who get offended”. But the idea is they would object, so they would be offended. And for less reason, since saying “your group of people is inferior” is a more reasonable thing to be offended by than “I didn’t laugh at your joke”. So, yeah, who’s the oversensitive one again?

Finding something offensive is not in and of itself a reason for something being wrong. There’s a difference between offensive and wrong, of course. If something is wrong, explain why and how it is wrong. But just because something that is wrong is also offensive doesn’t mean that the person pointing it out is simply being “easily offended”. After all, complaining about someone being offended is not a defense of the possibly-offensive thing in question. 😉

This has been Day 66 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 14. Summertime!

Best and Worst

June 30, 2014

There’s a popular quote attributed to Marilyn Monroe that goes something like: “If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve me at my best.”

And seeing as it has comes off in even the slightest as empowering for women (even though no gender is stated), there’s no shortage of anti-feminist jerks (the so-called “men’s rights activists” but I don’t like to call them that because men’s rights isn’t something they actually care about) whining about it and calling Monroe a drug-addicted slut who therefore had no business wanting respect. Because a woman wanting respect is oppressive to men somehow.

But I digress. There’s that and there’s an actually reasonable criticism of the statement, which involves responding with “Define ‘worst.'”

If “worst” means “abusive”, then surely one shouldn’t be expected to handle that. Or even if “worst” isn’t necessarily abusive but is still extremely draining and leaving very little of any “best” to speak of, yeah, that’s not a great situation.

Or just take it at face value, in which case “worst” might simply mean sad or sick or stressed or scared. Rather normal human lows, that if you’re going to cast off someone for experiencing, you’re kind of an asshole. Or at least it’s not much of a relationship or friendship or whatever.

Humans are imperfect. It’s not a bad thing to remember. But, hey, why get in the way of some accusatory overthinking? 😛

This has been Day 38 of the 100 Days of Summer, Round 14. Summertime!

Potatoes

December 30, 2013

So the Washington Redskins just fired all their coaches. Well, after a 3-13 season, something needs to change. This is sucky even by Redskins standards! Are the coaches the problem? I don’t know. This isn’t a sports blog. Go watch SportsCenter or something.

But lately, a lot of talk about the team involves the admittedly if arguably racist name. As far as that issue, I find myself pondering a solution. So here it is…

If the Washington Redskins change their mascot and logo to a potato, can they continue to be called Redskins?

But then again, I think the better question would be…

If the Washington Redskins coaches and players were replaced by potatoes, would anyone notice?

Unwise Purchases

December 18, 2013

People with Celiac Disease can’t eat gluten. It screws up their small intestine and makes them all kinds of sick. And yet, they are still perfectly free to waltz into any store and buy a loaf of bread.

People with peanut allergies must stay away from peanuts, obviously. In some cases, eating peanuts could kill them. Merely being around peanuts can mess them up. And yet, they are still perfectly free to waltz into any store and buy a can of peanuts.

Stores don’t require you to prove you can safely consume the foods you intend to buy before they sell them to you. They trust you can look after your own self and know what you should or shouldn’t be eating or drinking. Not that that’s really their place anyway.

But then there’s the drinking age. For this, stores are required to make their customers prove they are of legal drinking age before allowing the purchase. Because alcohol is supposedly uniquely harmful to those below that age.

Yet even if this were true, even if the tiniest sip of alcohol could cause someone 20 or under severe immediate damage, why are the sellers made responsible to ensure that the buyers of this product are those who can consume it safely, while they do no such thing for deadly allergens, which do a lot more damage to those with such allergies?

Maybe just throw this on the already gargantuan heaping pile of Reasons the Drinking Age Makes No Sense.

Let There Be Peace on Earth

December 17, 2013

So we can travel a lot more easily. So we can learn about each other and enjoy what we all have to offer more easily.

Without corrupt governments and politics sticking their asses into everything.

There are so many beautiful places to see and cultures to be exposed to and foods to taste, yet so many are in unstable environments, rife with crime and misery and poverty, brought on by corrupt infrastructure and political turmoil.

I’d like our relations with Russia to completely improve, and then we’ll build a bridge across the Bering Strait, so then we can drive to Asia. Take roadtrips to liberated China and India. Korean Peninsula could finally get along and then build a bridge to Hokkaido so we can drive to Japan as well. Then with the Middle East peaceful we can drive over there for some quality falafel. The kind they share with their Israeli neighbor friends because they have no beef with each other anymore. And then into Africa, free of corrupt governments and practices and abject poverty, for all the beauty it has to offer underneath all that.

Maybe international borders would just dissolve entirely. No more “illegal immigration” concerns because they would be welcome anywhere and even where they’d be coming from would be pleasant and peaceful and provide them with all they need.

No wars. No starvation. No atrocities.

Just a lot of cooperation and harmony and acceptance of difference.

It’d be nice.

Some Opinionated Uncle

December 11, 2013

With the holiday season comes family holiday gatherings. I see the lamentations of these from some friends and other places that with these family gatherings, they, someone who is progressive and/or LGBT, have to listen to some opinionated uncle rant at the dinner table about those awful queers or liberals. And they have to just grit their teeth and bear it, wishing for it to be over.

Whenever I hear this, I wonder… why is the uncle the only one who gets a say? Assuming it is safe to do so depending on the family environment as a whole, why isn’t the uncle being immediately met with the niece or nephew calling bullshit on all the stupid crap he is spewing? Yeah, the uncle isn’t just going to sit down and shut up if this happens, though he might. But as of now, he’s being given every indication he has a captive and passive audience, one that he has no reason to believe doesn’t agree with him totally. Why not shatter that illusion? Why must the niece or nephew have to grit and bear it rather than argue right back? Will it change the uncle’s mind? Very unlikely, but you feel a lot better getting your word in.

Then maybe he’ll learn to hold his tongue, and he’ll be the one suffering through a family holiday dinner while his enlighted niece or nephew is proudly liberal and gay! 😀

Only Human

December 9, 2013

You surely know by now that Nelson Mandela died last week. I was bummed to hear it. Of course, you can’t help but be incredibly impressed that he made it to 95, something uncommon even among regular people, let alone such a world-changing activist and politician. Compare that to Martin Luther King who only made it to 39 before his assassination.

There’s a lot of talk about him and his life, obviously. The amazing things he did. And behind all that, of course, are the people making a point to remember any not-so-great things he did (or often just making the good things out to be bad somehow). Just like with anyone else who does great things, their bad things get remembered, too, to remind that they were only human.

To which I say… No shit.

Nobody’s perfect. We all know that, yet we often act so surprised when reminded, and those reminding us act so smug like they’ve stumbled upon great wisdom the rest of us ought to envy.

Definitely not just Mandela. Barack Obama was put on a high pedestal in 2008, by people who must feel rather differently about him now. Martin Luther King was great but had his share of flaws, such as cheating on his wife all the time. Abraham Lincoln had his problems. Susan B Anthony had her problems. Robert Kennedy had his problems. The list goes on. Name a great person in history who was integral in changing society for the better, and they did some bad shit among the great.

This should be taken as encouraging, though. For one, it’s no reason not to continue to see them as great. Also, it’s a reminder that even acknowledging our own faults, we all can be great. We’re all only human.