"And if you’re a customer service rep at my local big box retailer, I want you to make it right instead of passing my complaints up the chain of command. "
Well, but that's the problem. That customer service rep at the local big box retailer doesn't have the ability to make it right. The customer service rep has the ability to forward your complaint to our Service Department and can we offer you a twenty-dollar gift certificate for your next visit sir?
Which is, I think, what ED is railing against--the idea that It's The System that's responsible for everything, and that we're all just cogs in the machine, Just Working Here, I can do what I can do, it is what it is. I think that's the real thing that's scary about big-box retailers; the idea, pounded into the employees, that they're just part of the process, that there's no personal connection between them and the customer. The Best Buy down the street from me isn't owned by someone I know; nobody I know works there; nobody who works there lives in the neighborhood; and nobody in that store would give a hoot in hell if I went to Radio Shack or Fry's or even a different Best Buy. If I go in hopping mad about the flimsy piece of junk that just broke, and I leave even madder after throwing their Chinese-made crap in a garbage can, they'll just shrug their shoulders and post about it on notalwaysright.com.
And, really, why should they care? It's not their fault; they didn't decide to stock cheap junk, they didn't set the return policy to be "no returns unless it's unopened", they didn't decide to eliminate the film-noir section so they could stock more copies of "Piranha 3D". And there's no way I can talk to anyone who is responsible for those decisions; it was someone in a corner office in Chicago or something, six months ago.
Anyway, where I'm going with all this is that modern bureaucracy engenders and encourages a passing of personal responsibility to the nameless, faceless, mindless system. Nothing's the fault of the functionary; no, that's just The Rules.
Which is, in fact, a problem, because if you make a joke about bombs near an airport checkpoint, you are taken seriously. As in, the "big bullet-nosed flashlights in your orifices" kind of serious.
But, of course, "violent metaphors" in political speech are just jokes and we shouldn't take them seriously, right?
"I would love either if some popular politician came along who firmly insisted that religion belongs outside of the political sphere and/or the people themselves adopted that position. "
See, that's great to say, but it still comes down to interpretation.
Let's say that the manager of a DMV office declares that employees at that office may not wear religious symbols at work, because open display of religious symbols implies organizational acceptance and "religion is outside of the public sphere".
Why can't you argue that this declaration is itself an example of bringing religion into the public sphere?
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means no law, either good or bad, pro or con, favoring or disfavoring. I agree that religion shouldn't be part of the public sphere, but you seem to believe that means all members of government should be atheists...
"I’m going to be extra cautious to judge only actual hate – or narcissism or cynicism or just blatant ambition without a larger belief – as illegitimate. If the messenger is sincere, I’ll listen to the message. "
Sounds great. Are you going to declare that people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are "axiomatically insincere", though?
"The bad news is that the heated rhetoric does act as a ‘dog whistle’ to crazies."
Oh, and you were doing so well right up until then. I actually liked where you were going with exposing the correlation/causation fallacy as applied to modern American assassinations.
But if violent rhetoric acts as a dog whistle to crazies, then how do you explain someone like Ted Kaczynski? What violent rhetoric got him started?
"...we can’t expect to stop assassins by looking at the places we’d expect them to come from."
So, great, you're not blaming Sarah Palin; you're just calling for mass censorship. That's supposed to be better?
From the article: "Stamper quietly chewed over these thoughts until the early 1990s, when he began to speak out to business and chamber of commerce types. He began arguing that we should legalize all drugs. "The more sinister they are, the greater the justification for regulation instead of prohibition," he says. "A regulatory model would give the government, imperfect as it is, the first opportunity since the beginning of the last century to exercise some control over the drug trade. In recent years, we have reduced tobacco consumption by roughly half without a shot being fired." "
Ah-heh. Cigarette consumption has been reduced because most places are making cigarettes illegal. It's not like people are voluntarily deciding not to smoke--the government has just made it so difficult to legally smoke that they don't try anymore.
On the other hand, how can we justify making substances illegal in a country where (depending on the state) I can buy whiskey and beer at a gas station?
"If I walk down the street and see it spray painted on a wall, I can’t really help but read it, even if I catch only a fleeting glance before I realize what I’m doing."
Sounds like Catcher In The Rye, and Holden talking about writing "FUCK YOU" on things.
I think it has more to do with the uncontrolled nature of speech. If I read a word to myself, then I'm the only one that experiences it, and I can completely control that experience. Nobody is going to simultaneously experience my reading that word (well, unless they're reading over my shoulder or something.)
But if I say the word, then other people might not share the context in which I am experiencing it. That is, someone walking by in the hallway might hear "NIGGER!" followed by a nervous giggle. They wouldn't necessarily interpret it as "this person is reading aloud from Huckleberry Finn and not speaking to me specifically, or to any person."
Your mom *is* right. It doesn't matter who was right; what matters is who wins. And keep in mind that if you get beat up but the other guy is punished, then you won.
I have to say that it's been funny watching people rush to be the first to not use this as a way to score political points (which, they remind us, their opponents are always just about to do!)
I was gonna say, "there's a reason the 45 automatic is the M1911, and it's not because there were one thousand nine hundred and ten previous designs..."
"I also brought up the Discovery Channel guy, who was obviously more closely tied to the left."
Ah-heh. Yes, yes you did, and in fact what you said was "the Discovery Channel hostage taker...was more identifiably ‘left-wing’, but he was so fringe it’s impossible to accurately lump him in with the American left."
So you brought him up just to claim that he wasn't Of The Left. Nice balance!
The problem with your "gently pointing out" approach is that racism--as defined by society at large--is a specific accusation. You can't be "accidentally" or "unknowingly" racist.
See, that's what's happening here. You've invented a new definition of racism, and you're accusing people(*) of being racist by that definition. You think that you're just saying "hey, think about the reasons you made these choices"; but they're seeing you as suggesting that they're two seconds away from putting on a white bedsheet and burning a cross on someone's lawn.
And that's without getting into the way you point out what you don't see. Who are you to tell me what my motives are? Would you be upset if someone started telling you that, e.g., the reason you like dogs is that you've got an unresolved bestiality fetish?
You see yourself as "gently pointing out", but what you are is a smug fuck who gets off by telling people that they're racist and are too dumb to realize it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The bureaucratic mindset”
"...I’ve run into plenty of customer service blokes that bend, break, fold, spindle, or mutilate the rules to make the customer on the line happy.
But then you say...
"It’s probably the case that “I could get fired by my jerk boss who is a stickler for the rules” is another “care-dampener”. "
All I have to do is sit here and watch you argue with yourself :D
"
"And if you’re a customer service rep at my local big box retailer, I want you to make it right instead of passing my complaints up the chain of command. "
Well, but that's the problem. That customer service rep at the local big box retailer doesn't have the ability to make it right. The customer service rep has the ability to forward your complaint to our Service Department and can we offer you a twenty-dollar gift certificate for your next visit sir?
Which is, I think, what ED is railing against--the idea that It's The System that's responsible for everything, and that we're all just cogs in the machine, Just Working Here, I can do what I can do, it is what it is. I think that's the real thing that's scary about big-box retailers; the idea, pounded into the employees, that they're just part of the process, that there's no personal connection between them and the customer. The Best Buy down the street from me isn't owned by someone I know; nobody I know works there; nobody who works there lives in the neighborhood; and nobody in that store would give a hoot in hell if I went to Radio Shack or Fry's or even a different Best Buy. If I go in hopping mad about the flimsy piece of junk that just broke, and I leave even madder after throwing their Chinese-made crap in a garbage can, they'll just shrug their shoulders and post about it on notalwaysright.com.
And, really, why should they care? It's not their fault; they didn't decide to stock cheap junk, they didn't set the return policy to be "no returns unless it's unopened", they didn't decide to eliminate the film-noir section so they could stock more copies of "Piranha 3D". And there's no way I can talk to anyone who is responsible for those decisions; it was someone in a corner office in Chicago or something, six months ago.
Anyway, where I'm going with all this is that modern bureaucracy engenders and encourages a passing of personal responsibility to the nameless, faceless, mindless system. Nothing's the fault of the functionary; no, that's just The Rules.
"
They can't? What the hell do they do all day, then? Laws have got to be more than just position statements!
On “Some thoughts on Obama’s memorial service remarks”
Which is, in fact, a problem, because if you make a joke about bombs near an airport checkpoint, you are taken seriously. As in, the "big bullet-nosed flashlights in your orifices" kind of serious.
But, of course, "violent metaphors" in political speech are just jokes and we shouldn't take them seriously, right?
On “Commenter Tribunals”
"...it really seems unlikely that someone will drop a lot of f-bombs in anger at my thoughts on Thucydides."
Sure, but I could see Aeschylus provoking some nasty replies, because, well, you know.
On “Some thoughts on Obama’s memorial service remarks”
So, what, you'd be happier if she were out saying "yeah! One down, two hundred forty-five to go! Fly, my monkeys, fly!"
Is that really what you'd prefer?
On “Commenter Tribunals”
Congratulations, you invented the Bury Brigade.
On “Some thoughts on Obama’s memorial service remarks”
"I would love either if some popular politician came along who firmly insisted that religion belongs outside of the political sphere and/or the people themselves adopted that position. "
See, that's great to say, but it still comes down to interpretation.
Let's say that the manager of a DMV office declares that employees at that office may not wear religious symbols at work, because open display of religious symbols implies organizational acceptance and "religion is outside of the public sphere".
Why can't you argue that this declaration is itself an example of bringing religion into the public sphere?
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That means no law, either good or bad, pro or con, favoring or disfavoring. I agree that religion shouldn't be part of the public sphere, but you seem to believe that means all members of government should be atheists...
"
But that isn't extremism. It's just stupidity.
"
"You know who else was worse than Hitler? "
Hitler's alien cloned brain in a robot gorilla body with LASERS!
"
...and, like the lady said, not just waiting for it to be your turn to speak.
"
I'm not sure what you mean by "diffused the situation". Could you please explain?
"
"I’m going to be extra cautious to judge only actual hate – or narcissism or cynicism or just blatant ambition without a larger belief – as illegitimate. If the messenger is sincere, I’ll listen to the message. "
Sounds great. Are you going to declare that people like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh are "axiomatically insincere", though?
On “Space Oddity”
...so you're telling me that "censorship" is an overly-strong word and I shouldn't be allowed to say it?
"
"The bad news is that the heated rhetoric does act as a ‘dog whistle’ to crazies."
Oh, and you were doing so well right up until then. I actually liked where you were going with exposing the correlation/causation fallacy as applied to modern American assassinations.
But if violent rhetoric acts as a dog whistle to crazies, then how do you explain someone like Ted Kaczynski? What violent rhetoric got him started?
"...we can’t expect to stop assassins by looking at the places we’d expect them to come from."
So, great, you're not blaming Sarah Palin; you're just calling for mass censorship. That's supposed to be better?
On “It’s Not Accuracy They Want…”
And in point of fact we have "human-hunting dogs"--scent trackers.
On “Prohibition’s Friends and Enemies”
From the article: "Stamper quietly chewed over these thoughts until the early 1990s, when he began to speak out to business and chamber of commerce types. He began arguing that we should legalize all drugs. "The more sinister they are, the greater the justification for regulation instead of prohibition," he says. "A regulatory model would give the government, imperfect as it is, the first opportunity since the beginning of the last century to exercise some control over the drug trade. In recent years, we have reduced tobacco consumption by roughly half without a shot being fired." "
Ah-heh. Cigarette consumption has been reduced because most places are making cigarettes illegal. It's not like people are voluntarily deciding not to smoke--the government has just made it so difficult to legally smoke that they don't try anymore.
On the other hand, how can we justify making substances illegal in a country where (depending on the state) I can buy whiskey and beer at a gas station?
On “Chabon-Inspired Stray Thoughts on Huck Finn”
"If I walk down the street and see it spray painted on a wall, I can’t really help but read it, even if I catch only a fleeting glance before I realize what I’m doing."
Sounds like Catcher In The Rye, and Holden talking about writing "FUCK YOU" on things.
"
I think it has more to do with the uncontrolled nature of speech. If I read a word to myself, then I'm the only one that experiences it, and I can completely control that experience. Nobody is going to simultaneously experience my reading that word (well, unless they're reading over my shoulder or something.)
But if I say the word, then other people might not share the context in which I am experiencing it. That is, someone walking by in the hallway might hear "NIGGER!" followed by a nervous giggle. They wouldn't necessarily interpret it as "this person is reading aloud from Huckleberry Finn and not speaking to me specifically, or to any person."
On “Be the Change You Want to See”
I'm reading your post and I'm just thinking "he's been trolled, he's been trolled, he's been trolled..."
"
Your mom *is* right. It doesn't matter who was right; what matters is who wins. And keep in mind that if you get beat up but the other guy is punished, then you won.
"
I have to say that it's been funny watching people rush to be the first to not use this as a way to score political points (which, they remind us, their opponents are always just about to do!)
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
I was gonna say, "there's a reason the 45 automatic is the M1911, and it's not because there were one thousand nine hundred and ten previous designs..."
"
"I also brought up the Discovery Channel guy, who was obviously more closely tied to the left."
Ah-heh. Yes, yes you did, and in fact what you said was "the Discovery Channel hostage taker...was more identifiably ‘left-wing’, but he was so fringe it’s impossible to accurately lump him in with the American left."
So you brought him up just to claim that he wasn't Of The Left. Nice balance!
On “Blonde on the Tracks*”
The problem with your "gently pointing out" approach is that racism--as defined by society at large--is a specific accusation. You can't be "accidentally" or "unknowingly" racist.
See, that's what's happening here. You've invented a new definition of racism, and you're accusing people(*) of being racist by that definition. You think that you're just saying "hey, think about the reasons you made these choices"; but they're seeing you as suggesting that they're two seconds away from putting on a white bedsheet and burning a cross on someone's lawn.
And that's without getting into the way you point out what you don't see. Who are you to tell me what my motives are? Would you be upset if someone started telling you that, e.g., the reason you like dogs is that you've got an unresolved bestiality fetish?
You see yourself as "gently pointing out", but what you are is a smug fuck who gets off by telling people that they're racist and are too dumb to realize it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.