![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
The comments on my last post have helped me better understand my reaction to the mosque protests, so I thought I'd promote some of that to a followup post. (But this will be the last one, really!)
First, an important point that I hadn't thought about when writing my last post: whatever their ultimate cause, some people have very real feelings of pain and anger at the thought of a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero. Sure, the basis for those feelings is probably an irrational but very human generalization of negative feelings toward "Muslim terrorists" to "all Muslims" (much as I described before), but we all find emotions clouding our logic at times. Looking at it that way, some of my earlier comments were harsher than they ought to have been.
And in fact, I'd be more sympathetic to the folks objecting to this mosque if their emphasis were on their own feelings and their own limitations rather than on the "offensive" actions of the Muslims involved. I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone who objected simply said, "I'm sorry, I hate to admit this, but in this place I still have strong negative associations with the Muslim terrorists who caused me such pain. I know it's unfair, but I'm not ready to cope with a Muslim community center so close just yet." But that's not the majority of what I've heard.
What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not! It might be more sensitive of them to refrain from building there (particularly if the objections had mostly been made in the way I described above), but the underlying problem is not of their making. Holding rallies to tell the Muslims they're not wanted (to the extent of driving away fellow Christian protesters if they happen to be Arabs) isn't a way of saying, "This is about my feelings." And it certainly isn't a way of saying, "...and I know those feelings aren't fair and I'm working to get over them."
That is why all these protests and objections bother me so much (and, I think, why I don't accept the word "offensive" as remotely appropriate in this context). If there is a valid reason to ask that the mosque not be built near Ground Zero, it must be made clear by everyone that even making such a request is an imposition on the innocent Muslims who are entirely within their legal and moral rights planning the project. But I don't think that's the spirit behind these protests. (And backing that up, the NY Times just published an article about opposition to new mosques all over the nation, most in "far less hallowed locations" than the general vicinity of Ground Zero.)
As a final thought, it's important to remember that the unfair mistreatment of Muslims in our society causes pain and humiliation and harm, too. We have to balance two types of undeniably real pain: the feelings of those for whom Muslims evoke the specter of terror, and the feelings of those innocents who face daily suspicion because of it. I don't know the best way to handle that. It may or may not be right, but I tend to have more sympathy with those who are being unjustly vilified than with those whose (real!) feelings are based on a flawed generalization.
False associations like "the terrorists were Muslim, so all Muslims are terrorists" are responsible for some of the darkest aspects of human nature. I think it's healthiest for everyone if we as a society work to recognize and reject them. And that's why I find it so upsetting when public figures who make these statements are taken seriously by society and the media rather than being condemned.
First, an important point that I hadn't thought about when writing my last post: whatever their ultimate cause, some people have very real feelings of pain and anger at the thought of a mosque anywhere near Ground Zero. Sure, the basis for those feelings is probably an irrational but very human generalization of negative feelings toward "Muslim terrorists" to "all Muslims" (much as I described before), but we all find emotions clouding our logic at times. Looking at it that way, some of my earlier comments were harsher than they ought to have been.
And in fact, I'd be more sympathetic to the folks objecting to this mosque if their emphasis were on their own feelings and their own limitations rather than on the "offensive" actions of the Muslims involved. I'd feel much more comfortable if everyone who objected simply said, "I'm sorry, I hate to admit this, but in this place I still have strong negative associations with the Muslim terrorists who caused me such pain. I know it's unfair, but I'm not ready to cope with a Muslim community center so close just yet." But that's not the majority of what I've heard.
What I've heard (as previously quoted) is that building a mosque there would be "offensive", as if the Muslims planning it were the ones responsible for the pain. They're not! It might be more sensitive of them to refrain from building there (particularly if the objections had mostly been made in the way I described above), but the underlying problem is not of their making. Holding rallies to tell the Muslims they're not wanted (to the extent of driving away fellow Christian protesters if they happen to be Arabs) isn't a way of saying, "This is about my feelings." And it certainly isn't a way of saying, "...and I know those feelings aren't fair and I'm working to get over them."
That is why all these protests and objections bother me so much (and, I think, why I don't accept the word "offensive" as remotely appropriate in this context). If there is a valid reason to ask that the mosque not be built near Ground Zero, it must be made clear by everyone that even making such a request is an imposition on the innocent Muslims who are entirely within their legal and moral rights planning the project. But I don't think that's the spirit behind these protests. (And backing that up, the NY Times just published an article about opposition to new mosques all over the nation, most in "far less hallowed locations" than the general vicinity of Ground Zero.)
As a final thought, it's important to remember that the unfair mistreatment of Muslims in our society causes pain and humiliation and harm, too. We have to balance two types of undeniably real pain: the feelings of those for whom Muslims evoke the specter of terror, and the feelings of those innocents who face daily suspicion because of it. I don't know the best way to handle that. It may or may not be right, but I tend to have more sympathy with those who are being unjustly vilified than with those whose (real!) feelings are based on a flawed generalization.
False associations like "the terrorists were Muslim, so all Muslims are terrorists" are responsible for some of the darkest aspects of human nature. I think it's healthiest for everyone if we as a society work to recognize and reject them. And that's why I find it so upsetting when public figures who make these statements are taken seriously by society and the media rather than being condemned.
Tags:
no subject
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXm_fUDfJZQ
no subject
no subject
no subject
It is much simpler to just live through tragedy than to observe it. Humans are built that way.
Hamlet finds release; the playgoer, angst. In massive disasters of earthquake, fire, flood --- the locals tend to band together and re-build, while our journalists fly in on helicopters to scream about looting and rioters. Pornography is rooted in observation not participation; hence beware people who wants to forbid something to you because they forbid themselves.
no subject
Things that have actually offended WTC survivors: Air Force 1 doing a low-fly pass over the area without warning New Yorkers ahead of time (gave people flashbacks and reactivated various PTSD) and voting against health benefits for WTC first responders ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AG0ddWf9TQ ).
no subject
Really? So then you don't believe in gun restrictions? Or campaign finance reform or hate speech codes or sexual harassment codes that violates free speech rights? Or any of the 98% of stuff our government does which is contrary to the Bill of Rights? I didn't know you were a constitutionalist, this really doesn't sound like your political beliefs as I've heard them...
So ranty I had to use two comments...
With respect to gun rights, I believe that the subphrase, "a well regulated militia" means that the militia can be regulated a bit. I am pro concealed carry when it is accompanied with safety training, for example. Like a driver's license, but showing you know how to practice safe gun handling. Like a driver's license, the test and course should be both passable and failable by anyone. The NRA's course is apparently quite good in this regard. (I am an eagle scout and military brat - I actually both know and care quite a bit about gun laws. The right-wing fetishization of guns gives me the howling fantods. Guns won't make you free, and they do a poor job for anything except stupid intimidation and last-ditch personal defense against incompetent attackers, which happens far less than people think. But I do like shooting trap, although I haven't in many years).
Campaign finance reform I am conflicted on, because while money and speech are not equivalent, but I recognize that they are mildly correlated. I am pretty comfortable with maximum limits of personal giving, however. I also support radical transparency in funding. Everyone should be able to find trivially out who gave money to whom and who got money from whom, and non-humans (i.e. corporations, PACs, etc) should be entirely barred from donating money.
Hate speech codes are done by private entities, presumably you mean existing hate-speech laws. Hate-speech laws have, as far as I know, never been used except when combined with an actual crime committed. I am fine with using hate-speech as a penalty multiplier. If I threaten an entire community and then act upon that threat on one person, then the crime I have committed is extra bad, as it negatively effects more people than just the most-victimized person. Another example of criminal speech: If I give an abortion doctor's home address and then someone reads it, finds him, and murders him, my speech would rightly make me an accessory to the crime and put in in legal trouble.
Sexual harassment codes are by private entities. Presumably you mean sexual harassment laws. Could you enumerate one that you object to so that I am not fighting a straw man?
I get pretty frustrated with the stuff that our government does that is contrary to the bill of rights, but I suspect that I am not as dogmatic about things as you are. For example: 98% of the stuff our government does is contrary to the Bill of Rights? No. It's only contrary to a hardcore libertarian fingers-in-ears lalalala not-listening interpretation of the Constitution. You equate money with power with speech, and so when I talk about being for regulating the flow of money (via taxation, subsidies, and government spending on infrastructure and research) and stemming the power of corporations (which are not people) you hear me talking about regulating speech. If you don't think those three things are equivalent, then I am pretty easy to understand.
I also strongly believe that the free market doesn't work well when things get too sparse (previous conversation about pharmacies being required to sell things applies here) or when the entities involved get too big and too concentrated (net neutrality worries and my support of anti-trust laws goes here) or when important information is allowed to be hidden (support for labeling laws and the FDA goes here) or when there are negative externalities (environmental causes go here), which, when combined with the fact that money does not equal speech, makes me okay with and support lots of things to which you object. You believe that a completely unfettered free market will find the most efficient way the fastest, and the most efficient way is also the right way. I disagree on both counts. I also think of the government as changeable and fixable.
Re: So ranty I had to use two comments...
Sounds good to me!
Hate speech codes are done by private entities...Hate-speech laws have, as far as I know, never been used except when combined with an actual crime committed.
Public universities are the main place where codes, not laws, are inflicted on people. And the libertarian echo chamber frequently reports stories on abuses of hate speech codes. Here's a libertarian propaganda documentary:
http://www.indoctrinate-u.com/intro/
Presumably you mean sexual harassment laws. Could you enumerate one that you object to so that I am not fighting a straw man?
That certain forms of speech ("Hey baby, you are hot, I would like to make sexy time with you") are banned in offices nationwide by the federal government, rather than set on a company-by-company basis. More generally, the idea that saying true things (unlike slander/libel) would be illegal just because someone doesn't like hearing them seems blatantly against free speech. I mean, as a workplace policy to make a good working environment, I am all for it, I would voluntarily have it in my companies, and I really like the standard which I believe is the law which I was taught at Google "You can ask someone out once. Twice is harassment". That seems very reasonable. But not mandating it nationwide.
For example: 98% of the stuff our government does is contrary to the Bill of Rights? No. It's only contrary to a hardcore libertarian fingers-in-ears lalalala not-listening interpretation of the Constitution.
We disagree. The interstate commerce clause was never meant to cover the federal government regulating everyone, that much is very clear. Now, I do believe in political self-determination as the most fundamental right, and I have no problem with all America voting to tear up the Constitution. But I do think it is an objective truth that judges have made erroneous "interpretations" which have drastically changed the enforced meaning of the constitution from the original intent.
I also strongly believe that the free market doesn't work well...when the entities involved get too big and too concentrated
But government is much bigger and much more concentrated than almost any private sector corporation almost all the time! You are fixing a fire by draining an oil well onto it. Libertarians hate big concentrated power, that's a fundamental part of who we are. To say you like government over the free market because you don't like large concentrated entities is the kind of insane cognitive dissonance that I judge liberal philosophy as incoherent based on. (I consider most libertarian philosophy incoherent and cognitively dissonant too, I will add).
I don't believe a free market is perfect or definitely the best or definitely perfect & I have never said that, it is a simple and false caricature of my beliefs (sadly, a true statement about some libertarians). I simply believe that there is strong empirical & theoretical evidence that it is the least imperfect in almost all cases, and that regulation makes things worse much more often than better. And I think that efficient is the closest, most consistent metric we have to utilitarianism & net social good.
Re: So ranty I had to use two comments...
I understand that this is how it is done, in broad strokes, in US offices. But the bigger issue is that I have never seen cited any law or bill which mandates this, so all I have to go on is caricatures of it from people with your politics. So I have no idea whether I am okay with the law, because I don't know whether the law and the caricature match up. In the past, I have seen too many examples of the law and the caricature being orthogonal, that I no longer trust the caricatures.
Also, I fundamentally mistrust the Indoctrinate-U people. I have seen the most revolting crap, on both sides of the aisle, get a free pass at every public university I have visited. They seem like they want to pee in the pool, and are angry because "pee" is ill defined in the "don't pee in the pool" rule (Can I ship urine TO the pool? What about if I have a drop of pee from last going to the bathroom? Why are you letting that little baby off the hook for its purported "accident" when I would get arrested if I did that?).
Re: So ranty I had to use two comments...
So I am not referring to a "caricature" and it has nothing to do with "my politics", this is what I was taught by a giant liberal corporation. I don't know much about this, but it appears you know even less.
They seem like they want to pee in the pool and are angry because "pee" is ill defined in the "don't pee in the pool" rule
There are liberals I get along well with. They genuinely welcome alternative viewpoints, including libertarian ones. They do not interpret "people with dissenting views" as "people who want to urinate in the pool". Since when is expressing minority, unusual political opinions equated to pissing publicly? That's fucking disgusting, dehumanizing, and completely intolerant. How can you consider yourself tolerant when you view things that way?
The Indoctrinate U people are propagandists, finding the worst cases and painting the worst picture, no doubt about that. But their propaganda is about toleration of minority views.
Re: So ranty I had to use two comments...
The only propaganda I like is the quaint posters and films from long-ended conflicts. I find them retroactively charming in a sinister kind of way. Duck and cover! When you ride alone, you ride with HITLER! As long as magic tricks like this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyQjr1YL0zg ) still work, propaganda on current emotionally-charged issues is fundamentally evil and wrong.
no subject
Right now, the two things which make me most angry with various members of the government right now are the existence of Guantanamo Bay, and the continued whack-a-mole game being played among senior military and civilian leaders who keep asserting that we are at war with Islam, which is also the devil, and we need to win this war for Jesus (and then these people are eventually fired - but what kind of messed up culture could make them think that was okay in the first place?). Domestic problems can be fixed, but foreign relations mixed with fundamentalist christian bullshit starts wars, recruits terrorists, and leaves wounds which take decades to heal.
Domestically, the continued existence of the TSA makes me angry (have they EVER stopped ANYONE?), and every time I see a sign saying "no photographs" I get furious. Laws about marijuana and other drugs are stupid, but I don't think they are unconstitutional, although if you asked me to point out the exact hack on the constitution which makes them okay, I doubt I could. Probably something involving "blah blah blah interstate commerce blah blah". Our treatment of immigrants bothers me muchly, too, as does our treatment of gay people (although less, because we don't have prison-without-trial for gay people like we do with immigrants). Also, the existence of secret laws or laws you must pay to see makes me froth at the mouth.
Basically, I think government should look out for the little guy to make sure they get a square deal, and you don't. You think of me as some radical communist because I only chime in when I disagree with you, and then I vigorously defend myself instead of walking away with my tail between my legs. If I agree with something you express or simply don't care, then I don't bother joining (or reading) the circle-jerk that usually results when people start praising your stuff on the Internet. I will point out again that you blog in an echo chamber, however. Everyone does (blog in an echo chamber), but it's important to be aware of it and to actively take steps to counter its negative effects on your own thinking.
no subject
Note that one of the main reasons I don't is I think the government is ineffective at ensuring square deals - it is much better at giving more privilege to the privileged, because the political marketplace is a marketplace of influence just like any other, and as many smart economists have argued both empirically & theoretically, in the political marketplace poor people are usually at an even greater relative disadvantage than in the economic marketplace. I also don't think pointing guns at people to tell them what kinds of deals they have to offer or accept is moral, but I would be much less bothered by it if I thought it actually achieved it's purported aims. It is easy to stigmatize libertarians as uncaring and ignore their substantive critique of whether government actually helps poor people. Just look at Social Security, which taxes the poor to give retirement benefits to the middle class to see how government programs redistribute in practice rather than in theory.
I will point out again that you blog in an echo chamber, however
Definitely. Although I like & encourage people who disagree with me while speaking my language and sharing my values. That is in itself a filter which removes many people and some true points of view, but it's not like I just filter for agreement. I am not open-minded enough to be able to communicate effectively and learn from people who don't speak my language and have very different values, so I am fine with filtering them out.
no subject
The most successful of the great society programs? The one which has single-handedly largely solved the problem of extreme poverty among the elderly? Yeah, I think it sucks. No. Wait. The opposite is true. I think it rocks! The only problem, near as I can tell, is that only the first X amount of income is taxed as social security income. That's a stupid loophole for the rich. Other than that, I am a big fan.
Of course the government helps poor people - not enough, and not in the right ways, but it helps them nonetheless. Government help for the poor and government rules are a large part of why poverty in America is distinct (and better than) poverty in, say, Mumbai or the large cities in the -stans. We have a better rule-set, better infrastructure, less corruption, and we have a strong enough safety net that people feel safe in taking risks. Nobody starves to death in the USA. They go hungry sometimes (and that's a bad thing which should be fixed), but starvation is a non-issue. The reason people don't starve to death is, in large part, government programs to prevent starvation. Food stamps, WIC, and many other programs have helped many people and saved many lives. Unfortunately for your point of view, the lives it saved were those of economically unproductive citizens - those people are often still a drain on the system. The question is whether we have a duty to help others not starve simply because they are human and we are human - I say yes, and I have never met a libertarian who says anything other than no.
Government also helps rich people! More than it should, but one of the main reasons for having a civilization is that it allows rich people to keep their toys. Protecting the haves from the have-nots has always been the point of government - that's what rules *are*. Rules don't protect people who have nothing. The amazing thing is not that government helps rich people, but that in America we first figured out how to make it help everyone else some as well.
no subject
Nope, that's just part of the problem. Also, it is not means-tested, so the rich get paid. Also, it is based on lifespan, and the poor (particularly the poor & black) live shorter lives. The overall result is that Social Security is a HIDEOUSLY bad deal for poor blacks, who pay much more in taxes than they get in benefits. It's a miserably bad implementation of the desired goal, even if you don't count the whole generational ponzi scheme collapsing under shifting demographics time bomb.
This is an objective fact that economists agree on, not an ideological statement. If we had the goal of "stopping extreme poverty among the elderly", and you submitted Social Security as a proposal, it would get a D.
no subject
The bigger issue, however, is that by saying "blacks and the poor die young" you are stating it as if *Social Security* is the problem. The problem is that these people are *dying young*. Let's fix *that*.
As far as I have heard from economists, I have never heard of another proposal which actually provided a guarantee the way social security does. There certainly are ways to make more money. But not any which provide guaranteed security. It's a matter of goals. Social security provides extremely low returns and extremely low variance. This is a *good thing* for a program which is the last resort for many many people. If it gets an economics D, in the absence of a creditable alternative I'll blame the economists. This D-grade program is working well, and looks like it will keep working. Let's keep it.