Archive

Posts Tagged ‘culture’

Maoris and Gays

April 19, 2018 Leave a comment

Any minority group which hopes to gain acceptance and support from the wider population needs to manage its expectations carefully. Most people try to be positive about others, but sometimes that attitude can be taken advantage of. And groups shouldn’t just try to be fair and reasonable just because that is the best way to advance their own agenda, but also because it is the most morally correct thing to do.

Anyone who follows this blog will probably recognise the ominous signs of a potentially controversial argument coming up. And yes, that would be true, because I’m getting pretty sick of the excessive demands associated with two groups in particular: Maoris (the original inhabitants of New Zealand) and gays. Yes, I told you this would be controversial!

Notice that I didn’t say that I have any issues with members of either of those groups. I get on absolutely fine with Maori people and gays. It is the political correctness associated with these groups, and often shown by people who aren’t actually in the groups, that annoys me.

There are a few events which have particularly triggered my indignation recently, so now I need to list these and say why I find them problematic.

The first is something that happened at a ceremony for the Taite Prize, a relatively unknown and apparently fairly irrelevant New Zealand music award. The band, “The Headless Chickens” (one of my favourite band names), was receiving an award for an album they had released in 1988. One of the members had recently died and another member at the ceremony scattered a small amount of his ashes on the stage.

The band described the gesture as “wonderful and magical”, and many people agreed. Unfortunately some Maori people, and many others in the political correctness crowd, were immediately offended, saying it conflicted with Maori cultural beliefs. And as we all know, no matter how silly and excessive they are, all beliefs of minority cultural groups must be instantly promoted above the beliefs and needs of every other group!

I don’t think anyone should deliberately upset another person by doing something that conflicts with their beliefs, but if an action is meaningful to them, or relatively harmless, and not deliberately insulting, then why make a fuss? But it becomes a power game to many people. They use any excuse to take offence and inflict their beliefs on others under the guise of cultural sensitivity. Well what about some sensitivity towards the band who had lost a valued member and friend?

But this sort of thing happens almost every day. Another example recently involved “Heke” beer which was criticised because the name Heke has significance to Maori, especially as it was the name of a 19th century chief. But the actual origin of the name is the island the beer is made on: Waiheke Island. Again this looks like an attempt by one culture to dominate another by whatever devious means are available.

Yet another example is criticism of pronunciation of Maori words and names. Apparently the failure to get this right is seen as a form of insult and a deliberate failure to treat Maori culture with sufficient respect. But this is just more fake power politics, in my opinion.

In fact, because of these excessive reactions, many people are feel so resentful towards Maori cultural beliefs that they are more likely to ignore or deliberately challenge them in future. Here’s some examples of comments on Facebook about the Heke beer issue…

This ridiculous industry of Maori grievance and offense is getting out of control. We have to start telling them we don’t care so just shut up.

Teke Tane Heke is not a name unique to Hone Heke. You don’t see the family of Prince Tui Teka trying to ban Tui beer, do you?

Ah right, so there’s only ever been one Heke. Didn’t realise that, or that a ‘surname’ name can be copyrighted. I might complain to a certain American soup company who are using my ancestor’s name on their product. [posted by someone with the surname Campbell]

Something else to moan about, lets not worry about poor education levels, welfare and the crime rate, focus on the big things aye…

Call it whatever you like and ignore all calls to change it although if you pay the “IWI” a couple of cans they will probably say it is ok.

They talked about it on newstalkzb this morning. It’s brewed at Waiheke Island that’s where the name comes from. Nothing to do with Hone Heke.

Oh I dont think they grabbing name at all its not full name just happened to be heke exactly right bt Tui an the comment bt Tui Tekas Whanau you have campbell soups etc etc na dont wash sorry

Im going to go out of my way to buy this beer and support the people that make it, just to spite these iwi fools.

In other words pay us some money.

What IWI Stands 4 ??? I want income ????

I don’t see much support for the political correctness team there, but I do see a lot of resentment expressed as disgust and ridicule. And yes, one of those comments was mine. I will leave the reader to guess which one!

So if that wasn’t awkward enough, I now need to move on to the second part of this post: the mindless reaction some people have when they think they detect insults against people of alternative sexual orientations, such as gays.

Again, I have a specific example. Australian rugby player, Israel Folau, has received a lot of criticism for his comment that “gays are destined for hell unless they repent their sins”. There is serious discussion about whether he should be allowed to stay in the team he plays for, and various leaders in the rugby world have made some very pompous comments on the subject.

Obviously i don’t agree with him because I have nothing against gays, and as an atheist I don’t think Hell exists, and even if it did, I wouldn’t agree with the idea of gay people going there. But this is clearly a strongly held belief for Folau, and doesn’t he have the right to say what he thinks?

It’s not like he has refused to play against teams with gay people in them, or personally abuses them, or wants homosexuality to be made illegal. Actually, he might support some or all of those ideas for all I know, but even if he does, that’s not the point under discussion.

So he’s a deluded moron who believes a primitive and evil religion, but isn’t that an opinion he is entitled to? And doesn’t the inclusivity the rugby bosses keep talking about apply to people with unusual religious views too?

It’s just another example of where fake outrage takes over and people in charge are just so enthusiastic to be making the right noises in support of a “repressed minority” that they put no real thought into what they say publicly.

In fact, I would be very surprised if a lot of the people who make the disingenuous statements in support of Maori culture and gay rights don’t secretly make inappropriate comments and jokes about them. I know a lot of people who do. Political correctness is not as widely accepted as it might seem. Not even when applied to Maoris and gays!

Advertisements

Feminism and Trumpism

April 10, 2018 Leave a comment

During a visit to fix a computer issue today I got involved in a “vigorous debate” regarding the overbearing politically correct agenda currently favoured by the left. I emphasised to the person involved – who I respect and agree with far more than I disagree with – that I share her broad political agenda, but think that some of its extreme positions are counter-productive.

For example, I said that I basically reject feminism because of the way the more extreme advocates of that view have made it look ridiculous. She looked offended and reminded me that she was a feminist. I said that there are a range of views held by feminists and that her brand was likely to be more reasonable than the type I object to. But was I just being accommodating in order to avoid an argument with a person who I fundamentally agree with? Maybe.

I told her that the more extreme feminists are the problem, but she denied these even exist. I guess this depends on your view of what is far enough from the norm to be classed as extreme, but surely she was being naive because there are extremists in every group, and why should feminism be any different?

For example, I would say a feminist who says that it is OK for false accusations against men to result in their social destruction is an extremist. As is one who says that all men are rapists. And the view that micro-agressions, such as “offensive” comments, are equally as bad as physical agression, such as rape, is also extreme. These views have all been shared by feminists recently. They exist.

But because this woman identified as a feminist she had to defend, or possibly deny the existence of, these ideas. In other words, she had lost touch with reality, which just happens to be my number one complaint about feminism, along with all the other -isms. (see my blog post, “No More -isms” from 2018-02-10).

This is an example of the tribalism which is currently making fair and reasonable discussion almost impossible. Because she belongs to the feminist “tribe” she has to defend it, even when it is wrong. And every group is wrong at various times.

Maybe the saddest and most ironic aspect of this is that she criticises Trump supporters for being single-minded and supporting him whatever the situation, yet fails to recognise that she is doing exactly the same thing herself. This lack of self-awareness is a sure path to delusion.

There is no doubt that some groups are far more susceptible to this than others. And some groups have a far more fact-based and reasonable world-view from the very beginning. So although all tribes suffer from these defects in some way, not all tribes are equally bad.

So how does feminism compare with Trumpism in this regard? Well you could say the fundamental aim of feminism is to attain equality for women, and that is a noble aim. But you could also say the fundamental aim of Trumpism is to make America great again, which sounds OK too. Are either of these aims any more real or worthy than the other? Well, to some extent they are, but they are also both quite delusional, because the stated aim often has very little to do with the actual activities of the group.

And that is why I don’t belong to any groups. I look at every issue in a neutral way… well, let’s be honest here: no one really does that, but at least I do it unencumbered with the inherited beliefs of any particular tribe.

And, as I said in the post I referenced above, the tribes I could possibly be associated with – such as atheism – aren’t real tribes because atheism is just the refusal to belong to a any religious tribe. And a similar argument applies to skepticism, although I agree the case for claiming that is non-tribal is less strong. But I will say is that there is plenty of stuff I hear from the leadership of skepticism which I think is nonsense, often motivated by that same dreaded left-wing, politically correct agenda.

As I have said on several occasions in the past, I don’t just thoughtlessly and automatically criticise Trump like most people on the left do, but I do disagree with many of his political positions. And I agree with most of the stated aims of feminism, even though I disagree with many of the details of how these aims are allegedly achieved. So I guess I would rate feminism ahead of Trumpism… but not by much!

Lloyd Geering

March 24, 2018 Leave a comment

Lloyd Geering is a famous New Zealand theologian. Actually, that isn’t necessarily much of a claim because my country isn’t exactly famous for its religious belief or its theologians, but Geering is still a pretty interesting character. He is Emeritus Professor of Religious Studies at Victoria University of Wellington, and recently turned 100.

Maybe the most famous aspect of his life was an incident where he faced charges of heresy (or, more accurately, disturbing the peace of the Church, and doctrinal error) in 1967 for his controversial views. He is the only person to have faced that charge, and it was withdrawn after an agreement was reached.

The Church might have decided it would be best to avoid the whole issue after Geering addressed the Presbyterian General Assembly for 90 minutes, disputing the belief that God created the Earth and is still watching over it, and claiming that Jesus’ remains are still somewhere in Palestine.

It’s pretty moderate stuff, really, and shows just how far we have come since then. Today we would think very little of that sort of claim. In fact it might be more worthwhile to discuss whether Jesus even really existed, making the claims of what happened after his death somewhat irrelevant.

But now I should move on from that incident to some of the opinions he presented in a recent interview I listened to. I have to say that the majority of what he said made perfect sense, but there were a few things I disagreed with. So let’s look at some of his thoughts…

He initially became interested in religion when he joined a student Christian group at Otago University. He did this primarily for the social benefits, rather than any true religious interest, but that grew later.

I have often said that churches are a great place to meet people and establish social connections. This has nothing to do with the existence of any supernatural entities, of course.

He initially saw god as a mystery beyond human understanding, but later realized that god is not a supernatural being, but an important word or concept created by humans.

I guess there is a lot of truth in this. Obviously, as an atheist, I think god is a human invention, but the idea that the concept of god is important, even if it has no real physical existence, seems fair. The word “god” is often used by completely non-religious people, including myself. And it features in 8 of the quotes I have from Stephen Hawking (also an atheist) including stuff like “God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.” Clearly god is a useful metaphor.

He thinks faith is an attitude of hope or trust in the future, and in friends. He tries not to undermine the faith of others, but has said that “god is over” in his books.

If people choose to read his books they should be prepared to have their faith challenged as well, I guess. But I think defining faith in the way he does just avoids the real issue. The sort of faith people have in religious teachings is far beyond simple hope or confidence. It is an often unshakeable belief in something, even though that belief would be absurd in any other context. I think he over-rates faith in this way, but so do most other people.

After the heresy trial he realised that the church is really just another human organisation, and primarily intent on maintaining itself. He thinks the church hasn’t kept up with theology.

I have discussed theology with several people and this seems to be true. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised about this because in most fields the academic, theoretical branch (like theology) is generally ahead of the more mundane, day-to-day implementation of that field (the church).

But it seems apparent that churches are less driven by theory and by new information than other organisations, and change happens very slowly, so I guess the practice of religion is likely to be more behind the theory that in other areas. And it seems that the practice is changing so slowly that the whole idea of religion is being rejected. Good thing too!

He thinks people have realised that the secular world is OK, but use Christian tradition to draw upon. He goes to a church called St. Andrews on the Terrrace. When asked, what is the point he says it is to join other people, who are more tolerant of gays, etc. He says that churches were opposed initially to all the great forward steps, and were regressive, but they didn’t use to be like that, before the 18th century. The church is opposed to the secular world, but the secular world is a natural extension to Christianity.

So, where do I start? It is true that our modern science-based, secular societies did originate from Christianity dominated societies, but I don’t think that implies that we should thank Christianity in many ways for what we have today. It is more like we progressed to where we are despite Christianity, not because of it. And he is right that churches, in general, are opposed to progress, but (again in general, because there are exceptions) I cannot see how it has been any better in the past.

He says the central doctrine of Christianity is that god became human, but god is just people’s highest ideas or values, such as love, justice, honesty, and purity. There is only one world, the physical world. The world of thought allows us to interpret reality, through the concept of god, which has no real existence.

I always feel like this tactic of defining god as some sort of immaterial human trait or other poorly defined concept, is a bit disingenuous. God has a specific meaning for most people: a supernatural, conscious entity. If Geering thinks there is some sort of conceptual idea common to humans which is an important force in our progress then he should use a different word to describe it, to avoid confusion.

He was asked: in the past god stopped us being too hubristic. What stops us now? He says use the example of Jesus. He was a great teacher of wisdom, lived life to full, and accepted others. God is in us as a set of values. In the past the notion of bad people getting their comeuppance in the next world provided some comfort for many, but that is not Christian. It is Biblical. The Bible is an important set of human writings, but shows prejudice, is fallible, and parts of it are wrong. We should also recognise that it contains a lot very valuable content too, and is of huge cultural importance.

It is true that Christianity does prevent hubris in many, but I think the price is far too great, because the message that everyone is a sinner and barely worthy of God’s forgiveness is a particularly damaging one, I think. I do agree about the Bible though: it is an important source of cultural detail, it is hugely compromised (especially in the Old Testament), and also has some fairly good positive philosophy. But in the end, it is just another work of mythology and should be treated as such.

When asked about his attitude to “new atheism” he says he agrees with a lot of what Richard Dawkins says, but thinks he is too extreme and doesn’t realize how important the concept of god is. He thinks that concept has caused a lot of trouble, but has done more good.

I always find Richard Dawkins extremely reasonable, except when severely tested by great ignorance, but I guess the fact that he dares to clearly say what he really thinks can be challenging to some people. Dawkins actually gives Christianity too much credit, in my opinion, because he concentrates far too much on the positivity of the New Testament without acknowledging the bad aspects.

And whether Christianity has done more good or more bad is very much open to question. I don’t think there is a clear case either way. I would tend towards saying the bad outweighs the good – especially because of its contribution to the Dark Ages, and the numerous atrocities carried out on its name – but I am open to alternative views on this.

Geering calls himself a non-theist. There are many definitions of god. The idea of a single god occurred 2500 years ago, and the opening lines of Genesis represent a dividing line in culture, because it was the first example of monotheism. The idea also lead to modern science.

It does seem that early Judaism was the first definitive example of monotheism, although there were many religions before that which had similar ideas. I’m not sure why that is so significant though, because supernatural belief in one or many deities still has the same negative consequences. And I always have problems with the idea that science came from Christianity when clearly it came from Greek philosophy and was actually repressed by Christianity.

He has faith in the human species, more so now than in past. He thinks things are getting better, and thinks we should have more confidence now than at the start of the 20th century. He says nationalism is weaker now, we have a global community, there was no World War 3 (and nukes helped prevent that), and that we are now more accepting of differences in cultures, gender roles, etc.

I tend to agree that things are gradually improving, apart from a few rather obvious issues we have today. This is mainly due to religion being abandoned I would have thought, so I’m not sure how this fits in with his other hypotheses.

Finally, prayer. He never prays – it is not even an option – but he does meditate. On the other hand, he thinks prayer is a form of meditation, that confession is self-reflective, and that we answer our own prayers.

Sure, there are positive benefits to prayer, but there a lot of negatives as well. While prayer can give people subconscious motivation to get things done, it can also give them a reason not to do anything, because “God will handle it for them”. And if he doesn’t? Well, God works in mysterious ways!

So I think Geeing has some interesting ideas, and a lot of them are quite rational. But he still has that underlying predisposition towards seeing Christianity as a source of positive influence. If he approached his ideas of how the world works from a more neutral starting point I think he would give religion a lot less consideration.

Still, he is just a theologian, so I think I can be generous to give him a pass mark!

A Better West

March 3, 2018 Leave a comment

In my last blog post I talked about how most economic and social indicators show the superiority of Western civilisation, but I also mentioned that I recognise that it has real problems. Today I want to talk about one of the biggest problems: our work environment.

This seems to be a major flaw in our society because the majority of people feel disillusioned with their work, and because work is still the most important part of many people’s lives, this seems to be an immediate issue which we should be paying attention to.

As I have said in previous posts, there will probably be no need for most people to work at some point in the not too distant future, so the problem might go away then, but no doubt that will introduce a whole pile of new problems as a result. But that aside, what can be done about work dissatisfaction until then?

Before I answer that I should mention another significant issue with modern society: inequality of pay. It is not unusual to find situations where CEOs, and other high ranking position, are paid at a rate which is hundreds of times more than the median rate for the company they are in charge of. I would say this is unjustified because I see no reason to think that most CEOs are doing a lot more than what any reasonably intelligent person could do, but even if it was justified from that perspective, would it be desirable anyway?

Also there are the biggest barriers to people enjoying their work, according to many surveys: lack of autonomy, incompetent and excessively authoritarian management, and micromanagement and unwarranted bureaucracy and paper work. Note that many studies indicate these factors not only prevent people from enjoying their work, but they prevent the organisation working efficiently as well.

Finally, there is a common situation in many companies (and other types of organisations) where the staff are not motivated to put in extra effort to make the company work better, and this is often related to the other points I have made above. If a person is dissatisfied with their work and is being paid poorly, what motivation do they have to put extra effort into their work?

As you will probably have guessed by now: I have an answer for all of these issues.

Every person in an organisation should take ownership of the day to day operations. Yes, I know that word “ownership” is often used as a business bullshit buzz word and has lost most of its meaning as a result, but I am using it here in a more literal sense.

What I propose is that every person’s pay should be made up from a base rate, plus a bonus depending on how well the organisation is doing. That would encourage people to work more enthusiastically because they would be motivated by their own best interests. They would literally have ownership of the organisation and its profits.

And, of course, because jobs will become increasingly unnecessary, people will get the base amount whether they work or not.

Many companies complain that they cannot afford to pay their workers the minimum wage, especially when there is a call to increase that basic amount. This idea would remove that barrier because everyone would get paid according to what the organisation can actually afford. There would be no false stories about how little is available for pay increases, because they would just naturally occur as a result of the company being successful. And if there was a genuine case of hardship that is allowed for as well, because the everyones’ pay will decrease to compensate.

And decisions could be made based on this system as well. No managers would be necessary because all the parties involved in a decision could be part of it. The vote could be biased towards the higher paid members (because they got that pay through being more highly valued), or to those who have worked there the longest, or maybe towards those who have made successful decisions in the past. Of couse, this would be a computerised voting system so all the details would be accounted for automatically.

Note that there are a few of issues which need to be tackled to make this system work.

One difficulty with this idea comes when the organisation might be (perhaps temporarily) running at a loss. Should the staff then have their part of the loss deducted from the base? I think not, but maybe they should have it deducted from future gains, so that no one ever gets less than the base amount.

Second, the financial position of the company needs to be made known to all interested parties, including the employees. The secrecy which surrounds this stuff nowadays is unnecessary and can too easily be used for dishonest purposes, so I think it should be dispensed with anyway.

Additionally, organisations which are not primarily driven by profit, such as charities, government services, etc, would need to find a different way to evaluate their success. And financial success should not be the only measure of success, even for private companies.

Third, there needs to be agreement on what the minimum base is for everyone and what percentage of profits each member of staff gets. I would suggest a vote amongst all members of the staff assigning value to each position.

You might think that everyone will want to give themsleves all the extra pay but I doubt whether that would happen, because people to have an innate sense of fairness, plus they know that id certain key staff leave as a result of low wages the company will fail.

Fourth, how can his fit in with the current model we have where part of the companies profits are distributed to shareholders? Well, I would like to dispense with that aspect of capitalism completely, because I think the people working at the company should be the only shareholders. Obviously this cannot be done too quickly or suddenly but it should be a long-term aim.

Needless to say, these requirements, especially the second one, present a few difficulties, but every system has difficulties, and I think we need to try new ways of managing work, despite the risks involved.

If everyone is part of the same team, and everyone can gain or lose in the same way that should fix, or at least significantly improve, the problems I listed above. It wouldn’t be easy to do, because the current power elite have a lot to lose, but it’s something which must be done.

West is Best

February 24, 2018 Leave a comment

Warning: This post makes the controversial claim that Western civilisation is superior to all others. If you are a “snowflake” and are likely to be “offended” by controversial opinions of this sort, you might not want to read this post.

I am often seen as a defender of Western civilisation against alternatives, such as Islamic or indigenous cultures, but I’m not trying to say that everything about the Western World is perfect, and everything about the alternatives is wrong. Far from it, in fact.

Actually, my real aim is to reject the simplistic (and yes, yet again, I will say it: politically correct) notions that everything about traditional and other alternative cultures is so wonderful and better than what we have created for ourselves in the West.

I have a large collection of maps (over 100 – I really like maps) showing various aspects of different parts of the world, and while looking at them I noticed similar patterns indicating the superiority of Western nations. So here’s a description of some of these maps…

Look at a map of the world showing life expectancy. In the top category is most of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Israel, and Jordan. The US isn’t in the top category, but is in the second top, just a few years behind. So clearly the best life expectancy is found in the Western World, plus a few others.

But what about the worst? Well, that would be most of Africa, where some countries (for example, Angola) have a life expectancy of less than half the top category! Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia are also fairly bad, with a life expectancy 20 to 30 years less than the top category.

So if a long life is important the western world (plus a few others) is clearly superior. But what do other indicators show?

What about happiness? In the top category is all of North America, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Switzerland, and Brazil. All of Africa is unhappy or very unhappy, and so is most of Asia.

Next, let’s look at freedom. Well, it’s the usual suspects: Canada, most of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, most of South America, India, Mongolia, Japan, and a few countries in Africa (including South Africa). But most of Africa and most of Asia are not free.

Now let’s look at peace. The most peaceful countries are Canada, New Zealand, Chile, Scandinavia, Japan, Germany, and a few other central European countries. The rest of Europe, Argentina, and a few other countries in various locations are the next most peaceful. The US is somewhere near the middle. Most of Africa and Asia (including Russia) are near the bottom.

So let’s look at corruption. The least corrupt countries are New Zealand, Canada, Scandinavia, Germany, and the UK. The USA, Australia, and Japan are also fairly high. Africa is right at the bottom, followed by Asia and South America. The least corrupt country, New Zealand, scores about 90, while the most corrupt, Somalia, scores less than 10.

Finally, let’s look at intelligence. Do I even need to tell you? I don’t, but here are the countries in the top categories: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, and Russia are in a high category, but China and Japan are even higher. Needless to say, most of Africa is very low. In fact, in some countries the average IQ is less than 65, making the average person technically mildly mentally retarded.

There are a few issues with what I have presented above.

First, I know I mixed up countries and regions. For example, I know Scandinavia isn’t a country, but the countries in that region tend to cluster together so using that label was just convenient.

Second, have I just cherry picked attributes which fit my hypothesis? Well I don’t think so, because I looked at many others too, and I just couldn’t get anything which didn’t make the West look good. One possible exception is air pollution deaths where the data was difficult to see a real pattern in, but at least this is one where I was relieved to see Africa do relatively well!

Third, are the measurements done by Western countries, and would some innate bias just make them look good as a result? There might be some element of this happening, but it is unlikely that the same result would occur for every measure I looked at. Also, I found multiple maps from multiple sources for most measures and they generally agreed fairly closely.

Fourth, what exactly are Western countries? Have I labelled countries that way based on positive results rather than the other way around? Well, no. What is a western country is not always well defined, but people know them when they see them. They usually have all or most of these characters: democratic governments; capitalist economies, usually with significant socialist aspects; traditionally Christian but often tending towards atheism now; still dominated by the culture of a European power which controlled them in the past; usually speak English, apart from Europe. One definition at Wikipedia shows Canada, Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe, and the USA. Sound familiar?

Fifth, it seems that the evidence is irrefutable, but the reasons are more interesting. For example, some people might say the non-Western countries are repressed by the West and prevented from reaching their full potential. Or they might say they are improving, but are just a bit behind the West, and they just need a chance. Or maybe this is all just part of the global conspiracy by old white men designed to maintain their position of power. I’m not planning on discussing the reasons here, but I find all of these constitute improbable conspiracies.

Sixth, many of the attributes I selected are difficult to measure and might involve some self-assessment, subjective opinion, or varying interpretation based on political and philosophical preferences. For example, how can freedom or happiness be measured in a culturally independent way? Maybe they can’t, but I maintain the overall picture is so overwhelmingly clear that any variations caused by imprecise measurements aren’t that important.

So it seems to me that the conclusion is inescapable: the Western World is the best, and New Zealand (where I live) along with Canada, Australia, and Scandinavia look like the best of the best! Anyone who disagrees is welcome to try living in Russia, or Somalia, or Afghanistan. Judging by the maps they would be booking a return flight pretty quickly. Make sure it is on a western aircraft (Airbus or Boeing), OK?

Join the Mansplainers

February 19, 2018 Leave a comment

If you can be classified as a white, middle-aged male, then you are in the unfortunate position of being in one of the least advantaged groups in society today. I say this because of the numerous examples of affirmative action and political correctness which support every group in society except that one. And these forces are not always premeditated because they are often a manifestation of a zeitgeist which has little basis in reality but has evolved through various ill-defined social and political processes.

The supporters of these phenomena will claim they are based on a real reaction against the existing power structure and that any attempt at alternative explanations is simply “mansplaining”. This is very convenient for the followers of these PC modes of thought because they can reject any criticism by labelling it as mansplaining, and at that point it requires no further comment. In fact, the refusal to enter into any meaningful dialog, or to look at alternative views, is a common characteristic of modern political correctness.

And this has extended into exactly the areas where it shouldn’t exist. In many US universities some subjects just cannot be discussed without a violent and unreasoned backlash from the politically correct extreme left. And many speeches, discussions, and debates have had to be closed down, just because a subject is deemed too sensitive to even contemplate hearing any view which deviates from what is considered “appropriate” by the self-appointed arbiters of what is congruous with social norms.

The most ironic point of all this is that the students causing the trouble are generally hugely privileged themselves, and likely to become more so in the future. Plus their experience of life and their knowledge of the world in general is usually pathetically insubstantial. But it really does take a genuinely ignorant person to have such total confidence in their beliefs, no matter how extreme they might be.

People like Ben Shapiro, Anita Alvarez, Charles Murray, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Bret Weinstein, and Jordan Peterson, as well as many others, have been shut down at American colleges recently. I admit that some (especially Yiannopoulos and Coulter) have deliberately controversial messages, but many are models of reason and fairness. And what is the problem with controversial opinions anyway? In most cases the person is never even allowed to speak and the points made by protestors against the speakers are generally laughably naive and inaccurate.

It should be noted that many of the obstructed speakers are “old, white guys” – although there are also women involved, and even one openly gay person – so this isn’t just a reaction to “mansplaining” in the most simple sense, but I think that is the most important component.

Of course, there are many occasions I have been accused of indulging in this myself. But it has got to the point now where I don’t see it as a criticism much any more, because I am starting to view mansplaining as a good thing. If no one else is going to be sensible, open-minded, rational, and fact-based then I guess us old (or middle-aged) white guys are going to have to do it, just like we have done the vast majority of anything worthwhile in the past!

Because it is exactly that group (old white guys, AKA OWGs) who have done the most for society. Sure, I agree, most of the really evil people in history were OWGs, but both aspects should be acknowledged. Just because some people who are currently out of favour (you know who the prime example is here) belong to that category don’t assume there is nothing good about OWGs. And never reject their opinions by applying silly tags like “mansplaining”.

As I said, if mansplaining is just a way the politically correct members of society label the opinions of the most influential and brilliant group in society I say bring it on. I’m happy to mansplain as much as possible.

And I would like to say at this point that I welcome any other groups into join me as a “mansplainer”. Women are very welcome, people of any age and race are also welcome, and your cultural, sexual, religious, or ethnic background is irrelevant. I would ask you to join the mansplainers, because the truth doesn’t belong to any one group.

No More -isms

February 10, 2018 Leave a comment

I am often challenged about why I reject various beliefs, such as liberalism, theism, libertarianism, or feminism. My thoughts on this are, that if you identify with a particular doctrine with is described with a word ending in -ism then you are probably being needlessly dogmatic. But then I remembered that I often identify with two (and maybe more) of those myself: atheism and skepticism.

So why would I ridicule one person’s belief (like the belief in libertarianism or feminism) while I give myself a free pass to pursue beliefs of my own? Well, maybe I’m just a hypocrite – that’s certainly possible – but I would like to use a slightly more generous interpretation of the situation and say that my beliefs are more a lack of a commitment to a particular idea than a close allegiance to one.

So atheism isn’t really a dogma of any kind, in fact it’s the antithesis of that, because it specifically precludes acceptance of any dogmatic, religious belief. I do agree that skepticism is in a slightly more debatable category. It could be seen as a belief system in some ways – in fact one meaning of the word refers to a specific philosophical system. But that’s not the meaning I’m using here. In this context skepticism refers to the preference for treating new truth claims with a level of suspicion until good, objective evidence for them is demonstrated.

So I think I can defend my -isms fairly well, but what objection to I have to the others? Well, the main one is that they are just unnecessary. Not only do they provide no positive benefit, but undue adherence to them is potentially dangerous. People who take their beliefs too seriously might follow the belief’s dictates instead of looking at the facts of specific incidents in the real world.

For example, there might be a need to decide whether a new industry – let’s choose self-driving cars as an example – should be regulated to ensure safety standards. A libertarian (that is, someone who follows libertarianism) might be tempted to say that more regulation is always bad and that the market should decide.

But not only do we see numerous examples of market failures (in fact the phrase “market failure” has become a common one in these sorts of discussions) but it can be shown through pure logic that markets often don’t work.

That’s not to say that markets don’t work quite well in some situations, but they certainly cannot be relied on in every possible place they might be used. But a true follower of libertarianism will think they do work everywhere, or at least will think they work in a far wider range of situations than a careful examination of the facts would support.

So there’s really no need for libertarianism at all, because anyone looking at the facts and at the outcomes required in a particular situation could just use common sense, and logic, and examination of the consequences in the real world to see whether a market or a regulation is a better choice.

So let’s look at another -ism now, let’s really jump out of the frying pan and into the fire and look at feminism. Is feminism necessary? Well, as you could probably guess from the general tone of this post, I don’t think so.

I know many people claim feminism is just wanting equality for women, but of course that is often not true, just like libertarianism isn’t usually simply about the fair and appropriate use of markets. Feminism in many cases goes far beyond that and demands special privileges for women, equality where it already exists, and is generally biased towards a female-centric worldview.

I’m not saying that there have been no good outcomes from feminism, but I am saying that the usual realisation of it can easily produce many bad outcomes too. There are many situations where females are now enjoying benefits because the bias is now in the opposite direction to what many feminists imagine. For example girls seem to be getting more benefit from our education system, women enrol in universities at a greater rate than men, women live longer lives, and they get less punishment under the law, etc. Hell, maybe I should be a masculinist!

And the issues where feminism might be useful – such as equal pay, equal participation in society, etc – don’t require feminism, they just require fairness. And most people have an inherent sense of fairness. I want women to have equal rights, but I am certainly not a feminist!

I see the down-side of -isms all the time. I see people react to an event which is actually quite nuanced in simple-minded, thoughtless ways, simply because of a knee-jerk reaction they have caused by their favourite -ism.

Note that I have picked on that particular suffix because it is catchy, but other worldviews which end in a different suffix, like Christianity, should also be included in my argument for completeness.

I know they are not doing this deliberately – and that’s what makes the whole phenomenon even more scary and dangerous – but the sort of thought that is going on is like this: there’s an event I want to comment on; I am a (insert your favourite -ism here) so I should think this; I will write some tedious, biased crap on the appropriate discussion forum.

And when a more nuanced person, like myself (well OK, sometimes I take a hard line to make a particular point, but I do make an effort to see both sides of most stories) comes along and points out any deficiencies in these arguments there is rarely a reasoned rebuttal to those points, because the person makes that comment just because that’s the way things are always portrayed according to their -ism.

If I suggest we need a new regulation to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to reduce climate change the libertarians will usually disagree, saying government regulation never works and we need less government involvement, not more. But they could admit that the market is the cause of climate change, not the solution, while still maintaining that markets are a useful tool in society overall. But if you follow libertarianism you really cannot say that.

And if I dare to suggest that females are already doing well in our education system and they really don’t need any further assistance, then the feminists will attack me with allegations of sexism and mansplaining. If they just admitted that there are situations where women are given an unfair advantage as well as other situations where the opposite is true, then they would be easier to take more seriously. But if you follow feminism almost everything looks like an attack on women and sensible discussion is difficult.

So I say abandon your -isms. That doesn’t mean to switch to another, even worse, belief system which just doesn’t happen to end in -ism, of course. So those who libertarianism shouldn’t switch to anarchy, and if you currently follow feminism, please don’t become a feminazi!