You know, when we wanted the politicans to close the camps, we didn't mean close most of them so the other ones are filled to bursting. Because that would be stupid. Or evil.
But they did it anyway, and now they're too full so we need more in East Timor.
Dear Ms Gillard: Bite my shiny metal ass.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Why Conservatives Are Just Plain Bad People
The talk is here, but I'll summarise:
Basically the idea is trying to understand what divides liberal and conservative mindsets by breaking down our central moral values. The speaker, Jonathan Haidt, first posits that the idea of the human mind as a blank slate is completely false, and science tends to agree. He then says that his work looked to establish the things humans care about from birth. The things we are hard-coded from the moment of birth to believe in as important enough to load with a sense of right or wrong. They worked out a big five:
- Avoiding harm and caring for the weak
- That things should be fair and equitable (aka the duckfeeding rule, because every kid knows that that duck at the back hasn't had any yet)
- tribalism and groups in general are awesome things, giving us rejuvenation and strength in lots of ways
- authority is important and needs to be inherently respected
- there are things which are pure and things which are dirty (in various senses), and being pure is better.
Obviously, there are lots of good evolutionary reasons to have these thoughts. Then they did lots of tests in various ways to see which of the five people cared about more. Generally, everyone mostly cares about the same about Harm and Fairness, but liberals put little value on group membership, authority and purity, whereas conservatives, since they tend to like the familiar, value those things quite highly.
His overall point is that to bridge the divide between the two mindsets and work towards understanding (because we're stuck with conservatives, dammit, and hey, maybe they were born that way) is to understand that the five things may be equally valuable. That certainly we need purity, authority and groups to achieve great things. We know that total anarchy never works, that people need an encoded system of belonging, justice and right ways to do things to feel safe and act purposefully and hopefully. Lots of studies have confirmed this.
The fun bit is you can join this research and go to www.yourmorals.com and find out which ones you care about. Unsurprisingly, I am big on harm and don't give a damn about purity or authority...but that's partly because their examples of purity tend to be very culturally fixed. As a liberal (and a person who likes the new and the open) I would no doubt say this but I think in general the idea is flawed that these five things ARE worth caring about equally, or without great care, simply because we start with them encoded in us. Because the last three are the ideas that become dangerous incredibly quickly, and completely ruin the first two. (For examples, see Zimbardo himself talking about his Stanford Prison Experiment and Mr Milgram in another awesome TED talk here)
Good for understanding though, and lots of other good tests on that website (you must refister though, so they get good data). The OCEAN test is interesting, basically another Myers Briggs with slightly different categories - Openness (to new experiences, ie liberal vs conservative), Conscientious (planning, self control, ie a kind of purity), Extroversion, Agreeableness (going with the group) and Neuroses (do you worry). I'm a OceAN, of course.
Which prompts the question: do I just dislike purity and authority because I suck at them, or vice versa?
Basically the idea is trying to understand what divides liberal and conservative mindsets by breaking down our central moral values. The speaker, Jonathan Haidt, first posits that the idea of the human mind as a blank slate is completely false, and science tends to agree. He then says that his work looked to establish the things humans care about from birth. The things we are hard-coded from the moment of birth to believe in as important enough to load with a sense of right or wrong. They worked out a big five:
- Avoiding harm and caring for the weak
- That things should be fair and equitable (aka the duckfeeding rule, because every kid knows that that duck at the back hasn't had any yet)
- tribalism and groups in general are awesome things, giving us rejuvenation and strength in lots of ways
- authority is important and needs to be inherently respected
- there are things which are pure and things which are dirty (in various senses), and being pure is better.
Obviously, there are lots of good evolutionary reasons to have these thoughts. Then they did lots of tests in various ways to see which of the five people cared about more. Generally, everyone mostly cares about the same about Harm and Fairness, but liberals put little value on group membership, authority and purity, whereas conservatives, since they tend to like the familiar, value those things quite highly.
His overall point is that to bridge the divide between the two mindsets and work towards understanding (because we're stuck with conservatives, dammit, and hey, maybe they were born that way) is to understand that the five things may be equally valuable. That certainly we need purity, authority and groups to achieve great things. We know that total anarchy never works, that people need an encoded system of belonging, justice and right ways to do things to feel safe and act purposefully and hopefully. Lots of studies have confirmed this.
The fun bit is you can join this research and go to www.yourmorals.com and find out which ones you care about. Unsurprisingly, I am big on harm and don't give a damn about purity or authority...but that's partly because their examples of purity tend to be very culturally fixed. As a liberal (and a person who likes the new and the open) I would no doubt say this but I think in general the idea is flawed that these five things ARE worth caring about equally, or without great care, simply because we start with them encoded in us. Because the last three are the ideas that become dangerous incredibly quickly, and completely ruin the first two. (For examples, see Zimbardo himself talking about his Stanford Prison Experiment and Mr Milgram in another awesome TED talk here)
Good for understanding though, and lots of other good tests on that website (you must refister though, so they get good data). The OCEAN test is interesting, basically another Myers Briggs with slightly different categories - Openness (to new experiences, ie liberal vs conservative), Conscientious (planning, self control, ie a kind of purity), Extroversion, Agreeableness (going with the group) and Neuroses (do you worry). I'm a OceAN, of course.
Which prompts the question: do I just dislike purity and authority because I suck at them, or vice versa?
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Also, this man has balls of steel
Imam goes to talk to Jones face to face, looking for understanding. This makes Chuck Norris look like a total pussy.
When everybody is disavowing, maybe you should reconsider your POV...
Pastor Terry "Happy to Endanger American Soldiers" Jones has been disavowed by his own townsfolk and community. Of course, he's also been disavowed by religious groups, protesters around the world, news journalists and the head of the US forces in Afghanistan has told him to shut up, the President has told him to shut up and Secretary of Defence has called him at home to tell him to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
But you know, I'm sure he knows best.
But you know, I'm sure he knows best.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Our message is very clear
"When we fly planes into the Twin Towers, our message is very clear. It is not to the moderate Americans. It is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical American and I think we see right now around the globe provides exactly what we're talking about."
Or maybe we should stop spelling things out with fire.
Or maybe we should stop spelling things out with fire.
Wait a minute, your ideas are SILLY!
CNN interviewer points out to Terry Jones that he's being a BIG SILLY (and has blood on his hands) when he claims that burning the Koran is just a way to say no to radical Muslims and that moderate Muslims should be for them. Your grasp of semiotics is shithouse, Jones. Or maybe...you're just a racist fuck.
I mean, this is from the interview:
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Our message is very clear," he said. "It is not to the moderate Muslim. Our message is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical element of Islam, and I think what we see right now around the globe provides exactly what we're talking about," he said.
And this is from your website, "Islam is of the Devil"
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Any religion which would profess anything other than this truth is of the devil. This is why we also take a stand against Islam, which teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, therefore taking away the saving power of Jesus Christ and leading people straight to Hell," the site says.
Also note that he begins his spiel by saying he's honouring the 9-11 dead. If you're gonna get your hate-erection on, please don't do it on the graves of the innocent.
I mean, this is from the interview:
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Our message is very clear," he said. "It is not to the moderate Muslim. Our message is not a message of hate. Our message is a message of warning to the radical element of Islam, and I think what we see right now around the globe provides exactly what we're talking about," he said.
And this is from your website, "Islam is of the Devil"
Pastor who wants to burn the Koran on 9-11:
"Any religion which would profess anything other than this truth is of the devil. This is why we also take a stand against Islam, which teaches that Jesus is not the Son of God, therefore taking away the saving power of Jesus Christ and leading people straight to Hell," the site says.
Also note that he begins his spiel by saying he's honouring the 9-11 dead. If you're gonna get your hate-erection on, please don't do it on the graves of the innocent.
Giving comfort and support to the enemy
Newsweek reports that the protests against the Not Near Ground Zero Not Mosque is helping Taliban recruiters up their numbers.
And General Petraeus himself has reminded the lunatics planning their "Burn the Koran Day" that they are endangering the lives of American soldiers.
Again, I say: do you think we're against racism because we like the hippy wardrobe and the marching gives us fresh air? You think I'm out there on the streets with a sign because I like joining things? You think I wouldn't rather be home watching cartoons? We protest because LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE. We're trying to reduce the rate of murder. The day you stop pointing guns at the undeserving and the innocent is the day I can fucking stay home and watch cartoons.
And that, really, is why I'm so pissed off. I WANT MY FUCKING CARTOONS BACK, but no, you had to go all kill-happy with your torture-boners.
And General Petraeus himself has reminded the lunatics planning their "Burn the Koran Day" that they are endangering the lives of American soldiers.
Again, I say: do you think we're against racism because we like the hippy wardrobe and the marching gives us fresh air? You think I'm out there on the streets with a sign because I like joining things? You think I wouldn't rather be home watching cartoons? We protest because LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE. We're trying to reduce the rate of murder. The day you stop pointing guns at the undeserving and the innocent is the day I can fucking stay home and watch cartoons.
And that, really, is why I'm so pissed off. I WANT MY FUCKING CARTOONS BACK, but no, you had to go all kill-happy with your torture-boners.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)