The classic American debate.
Wherever you fall on the debate, the truth will remain that Pandora's box is already opened. There can be no gun free USA.
The argument however remains divisive and lacks any sense, especially from the pro-gun advocates.
First up, it's extremely naive to believe an armed population is somehow going to stop tyranny.
It's an argument I see constantly, and yet those most vocal about it never DO shit about their own corrupt and abusive government.
Congress is (and has been for a while) less popular than the British during colonial rule.
Where's the revolution, boys and girls?
Why not look to other nations with mass gun ownership. I don't see much democracy and free association going on.
Plenty of civil unrest, war and violence though.
This is not an argument for gun control.
It's an argument against bullshit justifications for gun ownership.
Banning guns in the US will never work, stop pretending that is the end goal for gun control.
Banning guns may not ever be the correct response to gun crime, but regulations and restrictions are not the same as a ban.
There is no need to parrot meaningless rhetoric as your argument to keep your precious guns.
Gun ownership doesn't make any individual bad, and obviously those that legally own a firearm are not the criminals, but widely available guns certainly incentivise their use and make them more accessible
If you like to hunt or sport shoot, that's awesome. If you like to collect? Great.
If you think owning a gun makes you safer? You are an idiot.
I get the idea of self defence, but it's largely an illusion. There really is no such thing as safety.
We live in a world of 7+ billion people.
Even the most well armed and skilled individual can be overcome with numbers, and numbers the human race has in abundance.
Using a gun as a safety blanket strikes me as silly.
For every instance where gun ownership makes you more safe, there are many in which it makes you less safe.
A reasonable and rational person will weigh these risks and decide, and that I can respect.
Anybody
that imagines their sidearm is going to prevent government corruption,
or their arrest (lawful or otherwise) is frankly delusional.
Anybody that thinks good guys with guns are a necessary counter to bad guys with guns really does not know how life works.
The fantasy of being a hero and shooting the bad guy is a great one.
It's understandable.
Hell, I even admit to it myself, and I think "death by cop" is absolutely justifiable (even if we remove the cop. I think criminals forfeit the right to their safety even though I'm a bleeding heart. A criminal is not as deserving of respect or empathy as a non criminal, though bloodshed is always best avoided)
Perhaps home or personal defence really do justify gun ownership and I'm simply a cynic, but what I do know is that an untrained individual with a gun that is stored unsafely and poorly maintained is not a person I would trust to use it properly.
Gun ownership and gun control are complex issues.
When politicians declare arbitrary kinds of guns illegal they do a disservice to the conversation every bit as much as the nuts that think a rifle will end tyranny.
I only hope that sensible voices win out in the long run.
Showing posts with label Political Correctness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political Correctness. Show all posts
Monday, 15 June 2015
Monday, 11 May 2015
The personal is political.
This concept gets a lot of hate for very valid reasons I agree with.
Too often it is used to inject politics into EVERYTHING and to analyse everything through a personal political lens.
I genuinely believe this is n unfortunate inevitability of both the phrase and those that inspired it.
It is a complex and ambiguous term that has developed multiple meanings as it grew out of the insanity of feminist ideology (sorry feminists, I know there are good ones, but as a whole the movement is schizophrenic)
On one hand it declares that private matters, personal circumstances and experiences inform a person's politics.
I think this is irrefutable.
My politics was most influenced by my father. I'm a working class kid from a council estate. The political is VERY personal to me. Politics has had a huge impact on me, from education reforms throughout my childhood disrupting the quality of education to various changes to welfare and employment policy. (Welfare changes effect everyone; for example, the reduction of state housing & privatisation of low income housing has had a MASSIVE impact on things like house and rental/mortgage prices)
The other is more problematic as it seems to blame all personal troubles on politics, or find faults with everything (from political positions to the shirt some guy wears) by complaining about the ill effects to some imagined individual.
Not explaining how politics can and does effect you personally.
Not how your experiences inform your politics
Instead; how a political ideology should drive everything about you and dictate how you behave and what you consume.
It suggests that everything about a person, all people, should be defined by politics, by their ideology.
This is the side we see most often, inconsistent and hypocritical though it is.
It also goes a step further and declares that the identity of a speaker should confer authority on what they say.
I hope the difference is clear, so that the inordinate amount of chaff can be sorted from the grain ro two of wheat.
I do, however, often have arguments with people over the core assertion of the principle.
EVERYTHING is political.
Everything you do, every experience you've had and everything you consume is driven by politics.
Imagine something completely unrelated to politics.
A book.
Cant possibly be politics (ignoring the specific content)
But politics dictates;
So, even the creation and reproduction of a book, something deeply personal and individual is political. Even an author working entirely alone is reliant on the vast network of society to accomplish anything, and society is simply the application of politics.
Note how none of this, zero, has dictated what political affiliation must be held.
The nearest to political interference at all is whether it can be published. Under some political authority there is tight control (mass censorship) and this is bad.
Personally, I think there should be almost no limit to what is allowable. Perhaps banning manuals on bomb making or similar? (though libel and instigation of violence should be prevented in print media)
Unfortunately "the personal is political" is often invoked to incense demographics to demand their personal political agenda should be enforced.
We see people asked to view everything through the lens of their chosen ideology, to find fault with everything and complain about those faults.
This to me is a breakdown in the political process, and an effort to divide people.
When we can see how politics effects us, how as individuals our own politics is formed and can empathise with these things in others from different circumstances, hopefully we can be more constructive.
We just need to abandon the notion that any ideology should drive a person at all times, or that a given identity automatically confers authority.
It's simply not possible and takes extraordinary cognitive dissonance to maintain such a standard, as reflected by the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those declaring the personal is political.
Too often it is used to inject politics into EVERYTHING and to analyse everything through a personal political lens.
I genuinely believe this is n unfortunate inevitability of both the phrase and those that inspired it.
It is a complex and ambiguous term that has developed multiple meanings as it grew out of the insanity of feminist ideology (sorry feminists, I know there are good ones, but as a whole the movement is schizophrenic)
On one hand it declares that private matters, personal circumstances and experiences inform a person's politics.
I think this is irrefutable.
My politics was most influenced by my father. I'm a working class kid from a council estate. The political is VERY personal to me. Politics has had a huge impact on me, from education reforms throughout my childhood disrupting the quality of education to various changes to welfare and employment policy. (Welfare changes effect everyone; for example, the reduction of state housing & privatisation of low income housing has had a MASSIVE impact on things like house and rental/mortgage prices)
The other is more problematic as it seems to blame all personal troubles on politics, or find faults with everything (from political positions to the shirt some guy wears) by complaining about the ill effects to some imagined individual.
Not explaining how politics can and does effect you personally.
Not how your experiences inform your politics
Instead; how a political ideology should drive everything about you and dictate how you behave and what you consume.
It suggests that everything about a person, all people, should be defined by politics, by their ideology.
This is the side we see most often, inconsistent and hypocritical though it is.
It also goes a step further and declares that the identity of a speaker should confer authority on what they say.
I hope the difference is clear, so that the inordinate amount of chaff can be sorted from the grain ro two of wheat.
I do, however, often have arguments with people over the core assertion of the principle.
EVERYTHING is political.
Everything you do, every experience you've had and everything you consume is driven by politics.
Imagine something completely unrelated to politics.
A book.
Cant possibly be politics (ignoring the specific content)
But politics dictates;
- If it can be published at all
- How it is categorised
- It's value in the market
- Tax paid on it
- The legal obligations of the publisher, retailer and consumer, as well as their rights
- The manufacturing of the book
- The circulation of that book (it didn't just materialise on your desk, it got there on public roads)
- The ability to read what is written (education is deeply political, and without the politics that drove universal education the market for written media would be MUCH smaller, that market would shrink and less books would be written, or at least published)
So, even the creation and reproduction of a book, something deeply personal and individual is political. Even an author working entirely alone is reliant on the vast network of society to accomplish anything, and society is simply the application of politics.
Note how none of this, zero, has dictated what political affiliation must be held.
The nearest to political interference at all is whether it can be published. Under some political authority there is tight control (mass censorship) and this is bad.
Personally, I think there should be almost no limit to what is allowable. Perhaps banning manuals on bomb making or similar? (though libel and instigation of violence should be prevented in print media)
Unfortunately "the personal is political" is often invoked to incense demographics to demand their personal political agenda should be enforced.
We see people asked to view everything through the lens of their chosen ideology, to find fault with everything and complain about those faults.
This to me is a breakdown in the political process, and an effort to divide people.
When we can see how politics effects us, how as individuals our own politics is formed and can empathise with these things in others from different circumstances, hopefully we can be more constructive.
We just need to abandon the notion that any ideology should drive a person at all times, or that a given identity automatically confers authority.
It's simply not possible and takes extraordinary cognitive dissonance to maintain such a standard, as reflected by the inconsistency and hypocrisy of those declaring the personal is political.
Friday, 1 May 2015
In defense of Political Correctness
The term political correctness is fraught with ambiguous and conflicting meanings, and so to open this essay I will explain its origins, history, intent and current disparate meanings.
As many are wont to remind, political correctness finds its origins in Soviet Russia.
It was used as a shorthand to describe party doctrine, things that were acceptable to say. Quite literally, things that had been politically defined as correct.
As many Russians will attest, this was extremely subversive and quickly became a tool for scathing criticism. The oppressed often rely on gallows humour through both overt and subtle means.
Later socialists and others on the political left would come to use this term with similar meaning, a sort of cautionary self criticism. Irony and satire were the watch words; as sex positive feminists levied sarcasm, rather than rhetoric, in criticism of antisexwork crusaders.
As times change, so does the usage of jargon. The political right seized on the term to undermine liberal politics. An accusation of political correctness ensured mature discussion of subjects was impossible as ideological lines were drawn.
Some time later, as culture shifted, the accusation carried less weight, as many of the things deemed "politically correct" were simply an expression of manners. And so, political correctness seemed to have a makeover. While still often seen as burdensome or over sensitive, it is also widely regarded as either a necessary evil to promote civility, or a benign (perhaps misguided) attempt at moderation.
And this is where I begin my defense.
Now, to iterate in rather explicit terms that may not be misunderstood;
I am not a big fan of censorship. I am not a big fan of "the right not to be offended"
"I am offended" is a largely meaningless phrase to use in the public sphere, saying more about the speaker than the target.
Borrowing a response from the redoubtable Stephen Fry to such charges: "so fucking what?"
It would seem to me that freedom of speech is the one true and unassailable right we should grant in order for civilisation to prosper. If you do not believe that offensive speech should be protected, you do NOT believe in freedom of speech.
To repeat a wisdom I am in thunderous agreement with; take all my rights, but leave me free speech and I will use it to regain the others. (I read that on https://thegerasites.wordpress.com/, paraphrased & unattributed)
However political correctness, within a narrow set of circumstances, is an acceptable compromise.
I firmly stand by the principle that with certain privileges come responsibilities, and this is where the modern definition of political correctness (or sensitivity/civility) comes into play.
When used as a weapon in rhetoric against any group of people, political correctness is nothing but a smear; regardless of the ideology brandishing it. A quote from CS Lewis comes to mind as a stark warning; “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.(...) To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
When used to hold people in authority to account for their lack of empathy, understanding or knowledge; it is a necessary tool to ensure those in authority are responsible.
I think this has become the problem, as political correctness becomes a shield for authoritarians (and authorities) to claim the best of intentions, while practicing the worse excesses of bigotry.
I can only hope that the merits of political correctness become accepted, and its firm adherents educated as to its pitfalls.
As many are wont to remind, political correctness finds its origins in Soviet Russia.
It was used as a shorthand to describe party doctrine, things that were acceptable to say. Quite literally, things that had been politically defined as correct.
As many Russians will attest, this was extremely subversive and quickly became a tool for scathing criticism. The oppressed often rely on gallows humour through both overt and subtle means.
Later socialists and others on the political left would come to use this term with similar meaning, a sort of cautionary self criticism. Irony and satire were the watch words; as sex positive feminists levied sarcasm, rather than rhetoric, in criticism of antisexwork crusaders.
As times change, so does the usage of jargon. The political right seized on the term to undermine liberal politics. An accusation of political correctness ensured mature discussion of subjects was impossible as ideological lines were drawn.
Some time later, as culture shifted, the accusation carried less weight, as many of the things deemed "politically correct" were simply an expression of manners. And so, political correctness seemed to have a makeover. While still often seen as burdensome or over sensitive, it is also widely regarded as either a necessary evil to promote civility, or a benign (perhaps misguided) attempt at moderation.
And this is where I begin my defense.
Now, to iterate in rather explicit terms that may not be misunderstood;
I am not a big fan of censorship. I am not a big fan of "the right not to be offended"
"I am offended" is a largely meaningless phrase to use in the public sphere, saying more about the speaker than the target.
Borrowing a response from the redoubtable Stephen Fry to such charges: "so fucking what?"
It would seem to me that freedom of speech is the one true and unassailable right we should grant in order for civilisation to prosper. If you do not believe that offensive speech should be protected, you do NOT believe in freedom of speech.
To repeat a wisdom I am in thunderous agreement with; take all my rights, but leave me free speech and I will use it to regain the others. (I read that on https://thegerasites.wordpress.com/, paraphrased & unattributed)
However political correctness, within a narrow set of circumstances, is an acceptable compromise.
I firmly stand by the principle that with certain privileges come responsibilities, and this is where the modern definition of political correctness (or sensitivity/civility) comes into play.
When used as a weapon in rhetoric against any group of people, political correctness is nothing but a smear; regardless of the ideology brandishing it. A quote from CS Lewis comes to mind as a stark warning; “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.(...) To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
When used to hold people in authority to account for their lack of empathy, understanding or knowledge; it is a necessary tool to ensure those in authority are responsible.
I think this has become the problem, as political correctness becomes a shield for authoritarians (and authorities) to claim the best of intentions, while practicing the worse excesses of bigotry.
I can only hope that the merits of political correctness become accepted, and its firm adherents educated as to its pitfalls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)