(Above: there was an earthquake. Naturally, everyone phoned someone. And they kept doing it.)WE’RE STUPID PEOPLE.
If you’ve been following the science news, then you know that there’s been a mysterious lull in seismic activity around here lately. It's portentous.
The Reg’s Science Dude now reports that “Scientists have found a way to detect changes in rocks that precede small earthquakes on the San Andreas fault, a possible step toward creating an early warning system for Southern California.”That’s great. But the Science Dude goes on to say, “The southern branch is of particular concern because it could cause massive death and destruction in Orange County, about 60 miles away.”
Yeah, massive death. We knew that. But we don’t like to talk about it much, do we? The Reg buries its seismic stories in blogs like “Science Dude.” Nobody but me reads "Science Dude." And I forget everything I read there. I'm going to the beach.
UPDATE (11:45 a.m.): about five minutes ago, we felt a pretty strong earthquake. Lasted at least five seconds.
CELL PHONES ARE STUPID, BUT THEY’RE NOT KILLERS.
In this morning’s New York Times, John Tierney lists 10 Things to Scratch From Your Worry List, including “killer hot dogs,” “killer sharks,” and “carcinogenic cellphones.” Turns out, the “nitrite” weenie worry was a bust, as was the grilling-killing freakout. According to new research, weenies aren’t even a big threat re saturated fat. (But I bet tofu dogs are much better for you.)
Guess how many people died from shark attacks in the world last year? One.
Do you watch Mythbusters? Then you know that, as far as fuel economy goes, you’re better off using you’re A/C rather than driving with your windows open. According to Tierney, “After doing tests at 65 miles per hour, the mileage experts at edmunds.com report that the aerodynamic drag from opening the windows cancels out any fuel savings from turning off the air-conditioner.”
Thanks to the reliably unreliable Larry King, who seems to select guest experts with a randomizer, lots of people are afraid of their own cell phones, but, in truth, nobody can identify a way that those stupid things could hurt you, and “epidemiological studies have failed to find consistent links between cancer and cell phones”—i.e., there is no reason to suppose that there is a correlation between cell phone use and cancer.
I’m pretty sure that the Reb and I are the only Orange Counties who do not own one of these gadgets. We hate ‘em. At least I do. That’s got nothing to do with cancer, though.
WAIT. CELL PHONES ARE KILLERS.
This morning’s Inside Higher Ed reports a curious element in the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s new student orientation program: they are “adding warnings for new students about the dangers of “ped-texting” — sending cell phone text messages while walking.” Apparently, some of these kids just walk out into the street like zombies.
Of course, we all know what happens when you talk on your cell phone while driving. People are bad enough drivers as it is. Teenagers should not be allowed to talk and drive. Well, they should not be allowed to drive. Or talk.
SHOT IN ASS. DON'T KNOW WHY.
According to the OC Reg (Man found shot in the butt in Stanton), well, a man was found shot in the butt in the city of Stanton.
Authorities don’t know how this happened to the guy. They’ve interviewed him, and “He’s doing his best to cooperate,” or so says a cop. But he’s so goofed up, he’s no help.
I bet the guy has a cell phone. They should check it for nitrate residue.
COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTROL.
Yesterday, the Reg reported that two Tesoro High School seniors would be appearing in court (See). Recently, these kids were charged with “altering public records, computer access and fraud, burglary, identity theft and conspiracy in what prosecutors described as an elaborate plot to better their odds of getting into college.”
They’ve retained a celebrity lawyer—Larry King regular, Mark Geragos.
Looks like these kids were way out of control. One of them “altered his Advanced Placement exam scores, stole an English test he was caught cheating on, and pilfered master copies of tests, some of which were e-mailed to dozens of Advanced Placement students.”
No word on whether these kids have cell phones.
Why I hate cell phones
I recall one night maybe a year ago in a parking lot. Seemed like nobody was around. Maybe there was one guy about forty yards away, where it was dark. But somebody was madly talking to somebody. It was creepy. How could this be?
It be all right. It was this solitary guy, walking across the parking lot, unapologetically yammering at full volume on his goddam cell phone. I hated that guy. I hated how he weirded me out and he never even knew or cared.
You’ll be talking to somebody and then, wham, something starts buzzing on the table; or maybe some goofy calliope music plays; or maybe there’s the sound of nuts cracking coming from somebody’s pants.
Your companion suddenly looks at a spot on the wall and then reaches for their goddam cell phone. They look away from you. You’re gone. You’ve been forgotten. You shuffle away like Puff the freakin’ Magic Dragon—only to run into somebody else walkin’ and yackin’ on the phone. You step out of their way. You’ve always gotta step out of their way, ‘cause, when they’re talking, they’re morons, and they think they own the fuckin’ universe.
Hate ‘em. Cell phones I mean.
Why do people—especially kids, but adults too—always embrace popular new gadgets? It’s the kind of thing little kids should do, not adults. New modes of life—IMing, going through your day listening to music and utterly ignoring everything and everybody around you, suddenly startin’ up a phone conversation while you're in the bathroom—you’ve gotta take a beat, man. Don’t just jump in there! How do you know this isn’t just ridiculous? I mean, it’s new, so how would you know?
It’s this endless enthusiasm for jumping right in there and feeling really good about being part of the mindless horde who doesn’t think about anything but just does stuff—that’s what pisses me off. If that’s the way people are, there’s no hope. None at all.
I swear, soon somebody will find a way for two people to drink the same Coke—serially, I mean—probably with weird-assed straws shaped like Ronald McDonald and comin' out of your neck—or maybe they'll figure out a way to surgically exchange ears, and everybody will be all over it with their "new" ears and punctured necks. They’ll smile and laugh (through their neck hole) and think you’re obviously an asshole if you’re not into it too.
See, this has to do with how conservatism does not exist in this country. If you’re conservative, you’ve got this idea that things barely work as it is. And that means, mostly, you don’t wanna just shuffle the deck just for the sake of shuffling. Things could get worse. We could lose what we've got.
But, in this country, everybody’s into shuffling. Everybody's moving around and doing new things. And it’s all about commerce and somebody with something new to sell. The money people: they’ll change everything around without a thought, except the thought of how to make money and more money. And everybody goes along with it, ‘cause they’re morons, and they don’t think about how the most valuable things might just be imbedded in away of life. So you don't want to mess with it too much. You gotta be careful. Take it slow, if you can.
But who thinks like that, like a conservative?
Mythbusters last week on Letterman:
58 comments:
Last year a guy in brothers diving club was eaten by a shark. The year before that a woman who used to work at my college was eaten by a shark. I'm NOT going to be on the sharks menu. How? I'm not getting on the dinner plate by staying out of the water. Furthermore I'm not flying over the water so I won't fall in the water. Whatever may happen it won't be death by chomping.
I think like that Chunk! (Any consolation for you?)
I was sitting in a doctor's office the other day, waiting for a "procedure" that I wasn't looking forward to, and a woman sitting a few feet across from me starts making her calls while she waits. She talks in full volume to several people in turn, staring at a spot on the wall about two feet to my left and up. On the office window, obvious to anyone who walks in, is a sign forbidding use of cell phones inside.
It's like my colleague's 90-year-old Greek immigrant father says: the people who come to America (and their descendants, apparently) are the a**holes who couldn't make it in their own countries. (Present company excepted, of course.)
There is TONS of technology ('little gadgets') that gets rejected daily because it doesn't make "the cut" (whatever that is, it just seems to fail at its target market). Just that fact that things get rejected sometimes demonstrates that there is at least an iota of thought involved with whether or not people are going to just pick it up. Also note how long it took for cell phones to become what they are - years! It didn't happen overnight. In fact, at one point they were more of a hassle! They were bulky, and expensive. That means they were such a necessary thing, people put up with the shit-age of them and they actually persevered! Cell phones are a survivor! They made it!
Now they're obnoxious, because obnoxious people use them. Just like Mac users; they are usually perceived as assholes (sorry Chunk - I'm not calling you an asshole, just basing the argument off of what friends say about Mac users) and as such people don't want to buy Macs, because they're afraid of 'being like them'. I've been meaning to pick up a MacBook lately, and you don't know how many times I've been told "Oh, sorry to hear that," when I tell them I want one. "Why?" I ask... "It's a Mac..." Retards.
I definitely don't reinforce this behavior of judging technology because of stupid people using technology for stupid reasons. If you don't like the way stupid people use technology, get a piece, and show 'em how it's done.
None the less, I go for months and months without using my cell (I still pay for it of course, but I often lose the damn thing) and I have my own horror stories. I work at a movie theater, and people will come up to my box office on their cell phone, take 3 seconds to interact with me, then apologize to the asshole on the other end of the line. Being me, I always let them know "Oh, it's okay." Sometimes they smile, other times they look at me like I'm the asshole.
Let people know what you think about them always, but don't hold it against the technology man! It's just a collection of matter without any brains!
Sorry if this is scatter brained, I'm running out the door and just want to voice myself before the thread is buried.
I wouldn't even know what it would be to be "against" a particular technology. I'm not against cellphones or iPods or Mercedes leases per se. I'm drawing attention to the witlessness with which people accept any new thing or situation, without even considering the possibility that the "new" might be problematic, that it might affect other aspects of our lives or thinking or feeling--aspects that are important.
I especially don't understand many parents. Their children will spend six hours on the internet doing Lord-knows-what, IMing and wandering through social networks, and opining anonymously. It seems to me that a parent with even an ounce of imagination should see that this practice supplants others and may well be harmful in all sorts of ways in the long run. Who can say? But good parents are cautious parents, and so if you don't know, then don't go there. Maintain some kind of control
It's obvious that, slowly, sometimes subtly, our culture is changing owing to the embrace of cell phones. Why isn't there a speck of concern about this? It is as though we embrace a psycho-social theory according to which such changes in our daily lives can have no impact. But what is that theory? And why should anyone take the theory seriously? How do we know the opposite theory isn't right and wise?
I'm certainly not against "the internet," but, obviously, the internet is changing our lives and our society. The technology has obvious advantages (as does the cell phone), but no one can predict what this adventurous massive embrace will do to how we feel about each other, how we think about community, how we treat information, and so on. Only an idiot would look at this and say, "We know that this will all turn out well." Such an idiot, as usual, embraces a theory that he cannot articulate, and that is dubious.
We seem to be a nation of idiots.
The "Gene Pool" could sure use some cleaning out here in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia. A little shaker rolls through the hood and everyone panics. Kalifornians seem to lack the ability to think on their own when their insignificant daily routines are interrupted.
8:47, first of all writing "Kalifornia" is an allusion to the right, while "People's Republic" is an allusion to the left. You're confused.
You're some sort of "conservative," right? Well, in case you don't know (obviously, you don't), American conservatism is grounded in the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke and the "liberals" who followed them, and what characterizes their philosophy is an insistence on taking individual lives seriously. Nazis, Stalinists--these are the people who speak of the "insignificance" of people's daily routines.
Finally, there's been no panic in California. I'm here, in California. No panic. None.
My God man, get a friggin' clue.
why fix what ain't broke? Twenty years ago, did we need a cell phone to drive down the road to pick up a loaf of bread from the grocery store? We did not.
The Angels have the best record in baseball with a mostly homegrown team, defying for years the notion of buying a championship with expensive rental players at the expense of a strong farm. Today, I mourn the loss of Casey Kotchman for two months of Mark Texeira, a free agent after the season, and who has publicly stated his desire to play for an east coast team close to his home in Baltimore. Furthermore, his agent, Satan, I mean, Scott Boras, NEVER authorizes a client to seek a contract extension. Literally. The name of his game is testing the market via Free Agency.
Best record in baseball. Why fix what ain't broke?
Fuck it. I went and got a CrackBerry today..... cept my old phone was broke... my old phone was good for talking. This new one does more than that... it's shiny too.
[I'm drawing attention to the witlessness with which people accept any new thing or situation, without even considering the possibility that the "new" might be problematic, that it might affect other aspects of our lives or thinking or feeling--aspects that are important.]
Chunk, I'm not sure if that's quite true (at least, I'm not readily about to accept this opinion). I mean, on a large scale it might appear as though no one agrees with you (i.e. no one thinks about this stuff). But, I am the last guy to pick up a cell phone in my circle of friends (I'm also the biggest tech geek), and a lot of the times you couldn't get a hold of me on it because I have it in silent mode all the time. I hate to be interrupted. I considered what having a cell phone means. Just because I am the last, doesn't mean I am not the only one to consider the cell phone owning implications. Many have thought about what the adoption of such technology would mean and purchased accordingly. As I said before, it has been a slow adoption of cell phones, over a period of almost thirty years now (according to Wikipedia). I'm feeling mostly certain that people have thought about this stuff - about what it means to be interrupted mid conversation, bills, the power it gives your employers over you, etc...
There are people out there who want to be buried in their social networks, they want to be buried in work. They want to be able to contact their kids whilst out shopping. I'm saying this because I mean to demonstrate that I'd wager a good portion of society at one time, thought about cell phone technology and chose it. Otherwise, this expensive infrastructure would not exist. No doubt, some are oblivious to the aura of obnoxious they emit when they are on the phones. But geez, is this really so surprising? People have been driving over a hundred years now and people STILL don't get what being a "good driver" means (i.e. when you make a right turn, merge in to the fucking bike lane, don't cut off the hundreds of cars behind you!).
Hell, people thought so fucking much in to cell phone ownership that the zany ones started worrying that it was giving them tumors!
Am I nuts? Am I missing something?
Note: I am really, really against the way people use cell phones. I feel I can empathize with your reaction, but at the same time, I do feel as though this idea the people don't think about these things is wrong. It's just that people are idiots as you've put it. They take in to consideration their personal lives before they buy, it's just that once they get them, they don't take a second to think about the people they're driving nuts around them. Same thing with a car, lot of people buy cars, they think hard and long about what car ownership means. Then, they get one, and then piss me off.
[I'm certainly not against "the internet," but, obviously, the internet is changing our lives and our society. The technology has obvious advantages (as does the cell phone), but no one can predict what this adventurous massive embrace will do to how we feel about each other, how we think about community, how we treat information, and so on. Only an idiot would look at this and say, "We know that this will all turn out well." Such an idiot, as usual, embraces a theory that he cannot articulate, and that is dubious.]
This I can agree with you well on - the adoption of the internet was unusually quick. I vaguely remember being introduced to it in 1994, and by the time it was 2000 things were well underway. It was powered by lots of money, lots of corporations, it promised to bring information in seconds. Who could resist? It's a cherry picker's dream. If you feel down, you can easily Google the opinion of those who agree with you. It's miserable. I grew up very confused. What? There are people who disagree with me? Not that things are any better now.
the impulse to document everything--often with unsteady, low resolution shots from a cell phone--bothers me especially. case in point, the picture in your post where two people have taken the time to photograph merchandise toppled from store shelves (one of them with a cell phone) while one kid actually does something about the stuff on the ground.
Bohrstein, as I indicated above, I'm not against technology, nor am I against cell phones. Further, I grant that lots of people use their cell phones in a perfectly reasonable way. I suppose there are lots of people who own them for reasons of safety and the like, and that makes perfect sense to me.
It's all of that odd behavior that is unleashed in some, especially the young, upon owning a cell phone--and people's unthinking relationship to all that--and that includes more than the young. I see us as a society of unconscious social experimentalists, utterly unconcerned that by unleashing this behavior and changing the character of our lives, there might be consequences. We throw bombs into our social fabric and then wonder why so many people are antisocial.
I'm really talking about conservatism and the absence of it. A conservative society would think twice, for instance, about promoting easy mobility--to the point that many people do not really have home towns. (They lack a sense of community.) But we never even think of that.
I realize, of course, that there are academics who do think about this. I recall Robert Bellah's "Habits of the Heart." Great book. But, like me, Bellah worried about all of this social innovation, rootlessness, and unthinking embrace of it.
Observe that, if my point about an absence of conservatism is correct, the biggest offenders, in a way, are Republicans, what with their endless greasing the skids for all commerce, come what may. Globalization? Sure!!! Massive social change? Why not?
Ah, I see. I guess I can agree, I've not taken much time to consider said things. And as you've said, it seems plausible that neither have many others. I'll have to think about this more, I suppose.
One (idiot), amongst many, --B
Bohrstein, we at DtB love you. Don't be so sensitive.
Aw, thanks Chunkitude. Will do.
http://www.physorg.com/news136656072.html
Thought you might like this Chunk.
"There's a lot of things you shouldn't do - this is another one on my list," Yerkes said.
I've been railing against the many deficiencies of globalization for 20 years now. Its major problem is that it is not "fair trade".
But an interesting look at a major implementation of the same can be had by examining the nay votes on NAFTA. There were 38 of them. 28 D's and 10 R's.
2 of the R's were Helms and Thurmond. Isn't politics fun...
Excellent discussion of conservatism applied to new technologies, Chunk. Couldn't be much better, and I mean that sincerely. That's just the sort of post that keeps me coming back to DtB (among other things). I am a fan, and a friend (I hope).
Now do something for me: take the insightful premises of your last six paragraphs (after "Hate ‘em. Cell phones I mean.") and apply the same principles to the same-sex marriage issue. Your readers can do this too, as a kind of fun exercise.
At the very least, you will be able to explain how conservatives can be horrified by same-sex marriage without being bigoted or having anything against gays and lesbians personally. (Believe me, please, that I very much regret any pain that my comment here could cause for anyone.)
At best, you may end up dropping a "turd" in your own "punchbowl."
Part 1: The “conservatism” I am espousing is a kind of cautious impulse based on experience and an understanding that who we are concerns what Wittgenstein called “forms of life”—although one needn’t be a Wittgensteinian to see the point, obviously.
But it isn’t the only impulse. Years ago, I published an essay (in our local journal, the Elephant Ear) about “conservatism and animal welfare” in which I argued that a real conservative would be inclined to abandon many of our practices concerning animals, including meat eating. My point was that there were particularly important elements of our thinking—our “values”—that clash with what we do to animals (factory farming, etc.). For instance, those who suppose that we are obliged to be good stewards of our land—e.g., for the sake of the subsequent generation—will surely be very disturbed to learn how grossly inefficient and wasteful animal food production is. Those who are opposed to cruelty will also be disturbed. (See Matthew Scully's Dominion.)
So, naturally, there’s more than one conservative impulse, and, to my way of thinking, this yields among other things an expectation that the conservative will not always be against changing “what we do.” I believe that our steady rejection of racial prejudice over the last two centuries is an illustration of a kind of dismantling brought on by conservatism. That is, it is not an innovation within us, but an old value (concerning fairness, etc.), that has exerted this pressure to change how we think, what we do, over the decades. And it continues to exert that pressure.
Biology has been one reliable and increasing irritant re our social practices concerning race. What biology teaches us (e.g., the near meaninglessness of "race") makes it harder and harder to think clearly about nature while continuing to embrace certain practices.
And so it is with homosexuality. That homosexuality seems to be a common natural phenomenon that has no prima facie evil within it much inclines me to suppose that our practices have been built around cruel misperceptions of reality. And so some adjustments seem necessary. What those adjustments should be and how they should be implemented is of course a difficult question.
I am often struck by how very conventional and, in a way, conservative the gay community is. Most in that community have an ideal of family and marriage that is precisely the ideal that has been central to our way of life for millennia. They show an utter lack of innovative spirit in this regard.
They’re no radicals; they’re conservatives. They want in on our traditional practices and institutions. I say: let ‘em in.
How do cel phones and same sex marriage relate?
They relate to conservatism, a recent DtB motif. See comments above.
ok I am thinking of some obnoxious loudmouth spoiling one's dinner or movie.
Then I'm thinking of some people sitting at home and not bothering anyone.
Explain.
Read the comments. It will become clear.
Chunk at 9:09,
Thanks for the response, once again. You are probably thinking of writers like Andrew Sullivan and Jonathan Rauch (who, for anyone reading this, are both both gay activists and conservatives) as well as people you know personally. OK. But how about guys like Stanley Kurtz, who is more representative of gay writers generally on this issue, who says, quite explicitly, that their hope is of "eventually undoing the institution (of marriage) altogether" by "striking at the heart of the organization of Western culture and societies"? (Quoted in Sam Shulman, "Gay Marriage-and Marriage")
Wanting to blow up marriage "from the inside," and everything based on it, is not too conservative.
Well, yes, there are those writers, too. But I was thinking of ordinary people and how they seem to think. I have not read those writers (I've heard of 'em), but their views, as you describe them, seem absurd to me.
In any case, are there not many gays who seek to embrace a very traditional marriage, beyond the obvious difference? I think so. And are they doing any harm, beyond the "moral outrage" of critics? I don't see how.
The notion that they are starting us down a slippery slope to destruction of the institution of marriage seems hysterical to me. The gay people I know are perfectly happy to view marriage as right and good, as applied to homosexuals and heterosexuals, mutatis mutandis. (Am I wrong? I don't get out much.) They are no radicals, no innovators. (Hugh Heffner. Now there's an innovator.) I guess you can find gay radicals at some universities somewhere, but that's not saying much. The gay people I know are depressingly conventional, like 50s Republicans, only with lots of pastels.
Just kidding about the pastels. I felt the urge to be bad.
BTW, I'm very familiar with Sullivan and I'm a fan of Rauch's books--especially the one that popularizes Mancur Olson's theories. I'm staring at "Government's End" right now. Highly recommended. I didn't know he was a conservative. I just figured he's right (about the inherent disadvantages of broad groups and the attractiveness and increasing prevalence of transfer-seeking).
To the 11:23 comment: sorry, not getting it.
10:47, this post is not about cell phones. It has a far more general point to make. Further, its author has made it clear that he is not opposed to the use of cell phones per se. Virtually no technology is bad in itself; it's all in how it is used.
OK. So do people often use cell phones in unfortunate ways? They do. Especially young people.
Does it tell us anything about US that we so freely and unreflectively embrace a technology that obviously will change the character of our lives and our interactions with one another? The author of this blog thinks so.
So the adoption of cell phones and other new technologies without sufficient reflection on their potentially harmful social effects is deeply unwise, because you are, in a certain incarnation, Chunk the Conservative.
But "The notion that (same sex marriages) are starting us down a slippery slope to destruction of the institution of marriage seems hysterical to (you)."
So you are worried about the negative social effects of cell phones, Blackberries, and skateboards, but have no worries about the effects of changing the institution of marriage.
Got it. Thanks for clearing the up.
Dang it. Sorry for the smart-ass tone in my 12:40.
I am just trying to draw your attention to (what I think is) a significant blind spot in your (admittedly unconventional) conservatism.
I for one "have no worries about the effects of changing the institution of marriage," as the marriage of same sex individuals does not change the institution of marriage. It's just a talking point made by intolerant people as if they are affected adversely in some manner.
1:26,
It's just polemical to call someone "intolerant" who disagrees with you about same-sex marriage. Polemics have no value here, and, in fact, are a distraction. Read Chunk's post and the comments, for the first time, and see whether you can even understand the issue. (Or would that be too hard?)
12:40, yeah, careful with the tone. First, I used cell phones to make a broader point. If I were to launch a discussion of what’s wrong with society—I don’t usually bite off quite so much—I sure as hell wouldn’t start with cell phones. And I’m not “worried” about ‘em, ‘cause they’re here to stay. I was trying to focus on a certain attitude, an unreflectiveness, that is easy to see in the case of such gizmos as cell phones.
Now, arguably at least, we can do with or without the “pros” of cell phones, and, either way, it wouldn’t make much difference to our lives. But by blocking gay marriages, we potentially unnecessarily burden a great many lives. On the other side, there is the question of what embracing gay marriage will do “to society.” Again, I just can’t see any merit at all to “slippery slope” arguments in this case, since (a) the world is peppered with many instances of actual or de facto gay unions, and this doesn’t seem to be impinging on Team Hetero in the slightest (apart from occasional bouts of “homo” rage). Plus, as I suggested, (b) gay couples generally view themselves as joining an institution, not challenging it. As far as their intentions are concerned, there’s no worry here.
I’d sympathize with your POV if you could provide one shred of evidence, one reason to suppose, that opening marriage up to gay people “threatens the institution of marriage.” (Beware of grand language, I say.) In the meantime, millions of people suffer now (in various ways in to various degrees) because they are excluded from marriage, something, again, they LIKE and seek to JOIN.
Remember, I never said—on the contrary, I implied the opposite—that I am a conservative in the sense of seeking always to conserve the status quo. I am a conservative in the sense that an abolitionist or an opponent of child labor was a conservative, insisting that we should remain true to our “values” (hate that sloppy word; prefer Victorian language) and recognize that we’ve drifted from a clear expression of them or have encountered new circumstances that have (perhaps imperceptibly) driven a wedge between “value and practice,” to coin a phrase.
As in the sciences, as moral beings we usually have to approach questions, not with a calculus, but with the difficult logic of “all things considered.” There are no guarantees, and we move (or we should) with a hopeful judgment that seems, at least for now, to maximize the honoring of our many and sometimes competing concerns. And it seems to me that the most powerful concern here is not any threat to marriage—threat how?—but the possibility that we will continue to cause misery (use your preferred language here) in the lives of millions of people who, prima facie, are no better or worse than Team Hetero.
One more thing. I really don’t care whether I am a conservative or not. I am what I am, and what I am strikes me as something that should be called “conservative.” I’m certainly not trying to join the club of people who usually call themselves conservative (they strike me as stupid and coarse). If it seems to you that I should be called something else, then I’d be happy to hear about it. If the label seems right, I’ll take it and happily wear it on my forehead.
Calling myself a “conservative,” among other things (such as, in my view, being accurate), is rhetorically powerful, since it amounts to an invitation to those people we call conservatives to consider their crucial concerns (aka “core values”; blecch) and to reflect on whether they are betraying them.
In my view, in so many ways, they are. (We’ll leave an assault on “liberals” to another day.)
P.S.: I am pleased with our discussion and with other discussions that have sprouted here on DtB in recent weeks. It is enjoyable to me and I do hope it is enjoyable to others who participate. As always, any suggestions would be appreciated. —The Management
(Jonathan, where've you been?)
"It's just polemical to call someone "intolerant" who disagrees with you about same-sex marriage."
Well, if you mean advancing a point, then "polemical" it is. I am sure you hate to think of yourself as intolerant, but then again, how would you describe yourself?
I'm thinking to an old Mary Tyler Moore show, when Ted Baxter says "Stupid. I hate that word." To which Murray says, "That's why I hate the word 'bald.'" (He's bald, see, if you get the context.)
Well, I did already apologize for the tone at 12:40. I will do so again: I am sincerely sorry. But I can't unring a bell. No need to rub it in that I was wrong.
RE your: 'I’d sympathize with your POV if you could provide one shred of evidence, one reason to suppose, that opening marriage up to gay people “threatens the institution of marriage.”'
Extremely Short Version:
Allowing same-sex marriage changes a necessary condition for marriage--consent--into a sufficient condition. In so doing, it fails for "conserve" the other necessary conditions for marriage, and thus fails to "conserve" any aspects of society that depend on those other, eliminated, necessary conditions.
One more thing: you don't care about holding a label as "conservative." Of course not. And I don't care if people think that I am intolerant, a bigot, or an raging asshole for being against same-sex marriage. I ought not stand by while others--some of whom I care about a lot--progressively deconstruct our society.
I am conservative in at least one sense. I have these crazy ideas, for example, that a child should, if possible, be raised by the man and woman who made her, and that we should all-hetero or homo--be chaste, however challenging that is for us.
If you don't see the benefits of such ideas, and how a society based on them would be better than what we currently have, I don't know what to say, except Peace.
I would suggest looking at the term "false dilemma," 3:23.
Also, some of us have "crazy ideas" that our society is more complex than some would believe, and that pure discriminatory exclusion for no good reason but an idealized perception of child raising (that is all well and good but never will be the reality, and that is undone very day by heterosexual parenting) is not enough to deny loving people a union that does no harm to you.
Sorry, second comment:
"Allowing same-sex marriage changes a necessary condition for marriage--consent--into a sufficient condition. In so doing, it fails for "conserve" the other necessary conditions for marriage, and thus fails to "conserve" any aspects of society that depend on those other, eliminated, necessary conditions."
This is nicely worded and all, but is really nothing more than sophistry without strong examples to back it up.
3:23, why so testy?
Your account of the reason (to think that gay marriages would threaten the institution of marriage) isn’t just extremely short; it is radically incomplete. I am, of course, familiar with “necessary and sufficient conditions,” and yet I don’t know what you’re saying here. I can’t help but think that you are obscuring your lack of an argument with abstract, pseudo-technical puffery. Allowing gay marriages doesn’t make “consent” a sufficient condition; children (e.g.) would still be excluded from marriage (i.e., being adult would continue to be yet another, and not the only other, “necessary” condition). On the face of things, the only things that would change, were gay marriages to be allowed, is that one (among several) necessary condition (viz., that the couple need to be of different sexes) would be eliminated. All other necessary conditions would remain. If I’m wrong, tell me how I’m wrong, and do avoid producing clouds of abstruse (or…?) abstraction.
You seem to be responding to me, and so I am bewildered that you attribute to me (I guess, since you bring it up) charging you with intolerance or bigotry. Perhaps others have. I have made no such charge.
That you are attempting to protect marriage from “deconstruction” assumes what is at issue here, for it assumes that, by allowing gay marriage, we are destroying marriage, a point that has been established by no one, not at least in the discussions here in this blog. Again I say: give us a reason to suppose that allowing gay marriage threatens the institution of marriage. Asserting that it does is not an argument or a reason.
You seem to be ridiculing the idea that a child might be raised well by something other than the heterosexual couple that created her (“I have these crazy ideas”). Again, you are assuming what you need to establish. At the very least, we know that it is possible for children to be raised well in other configurations (since, without doubt, it does occur, as in the case of at least some single-parent situations). And I am aware of no study that demonstrates a discernable pattern of child-rearing failure in gay families. (I would certainly love to look at such a study. But remember: some studies aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. As always, we need to look for the usual markers of quality.) And so, as far as I can see, we have no good reason to suppose that gay couples cannot successfully raise children. You have yet to give one. And if you were to actually observe these new nuclear units, I think you will be struck by how utterly familiar and unremarkable their family lives are. It’s not as though a kid’s gotta sit through endless orgies or pornography festivals.
I am mystified by your point concerning chastity. (I assume we’re talking about fidelity here, not the absence of sexual desire.) You seem to be assuming that heterosexual couples seek fidelity but homosexual couples do not. Where on earth did you get that idea? Let me suggest that you need to get to know some members of Team Homo. Hanging with Team Hetero (or your particular franchise) is keeping you from seeing the world for what it is.
4:38,
I did look up False Dilemma, and I found the following examples:
"Either we allow only poor heterosexual parenting or we allow same-sex parenting. We cannot allow only poor heterosexual parenting. Therefore, we must allow same-sex parenting."
"Either we attain an falsely idealized heterosexual society, or we have "anything goes" in the name of civil rights.
Can't have a falsely idealized heterosexual society.
So, gotta have "anything goes."
Are those the sort of examples you were directing me to?
Chunk,
1:26 and 3:15 called me "intolerant," not you, of course.
Guess what? I don't care. I want to be loved and respected (and hired and given tenure) by my fellow academics, including all my leftist, deconstructionist, and anarchist acquaintances, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've gotta let it go.
RE: "And if you were to actually observe these new nuclear units, I think you will be struck by how utterly familiar and unremarkable their family lives are. It’s not as though a kid’s gotta sit through endless orgies or pornography festivals."
Gosh, how could I ever find a way to "actually observe these new nuclear units"? I am just so insulated with "Team Hetero."
Well, how about in My Own Family?
True Story #1:
My lesbian relative and her partner decide that they want to have a child. Now, they cannot have a child together, because they are both women. Gonna need a man. So (and those of you who are familiar with these "new nuclear units" know how this often works with lesbian couples) they review together the names of their male friends in the gay community. They pick a nice fella. They approach him, make him an offer he can't refuse, and he agrees. My relative is a well-educated person, considered wise by her whole family, including me, and she is very careful. She asks her friend to get tested for HIV. No problem. She interviews him further to make sure that he doesn't engage in any "crazy" sex (her word) in order to minimize the chances that he will bring any unwanted organisms to the project. No problem, he says, he is a "conservative" guy, doesn't engage in anything "crazy." OK, good. The idea is that my relative and her partner will raise the child together, and this guy will "also be involved in the child's life," through "regular visits."
So the day is arranged, a turkey baster is prepared, etc. Nine months later, a child is born. So far, so good.
The friend/daddy gets Herpes in his eyes and goes blind. He gets Hepatitis C, and a couple of other maladies from his self-certified "conservative" lifestyle. He dies in his forties. Now that child, still quite young, has no father at all, not even one who can make "regular visits." Great: "utterly familiar and unremarkable" indeed.
True story #2: Another lesbian relative wants to have a child with her partner. Again, though, they're gonna need a man. Mutual review of gay friends, long discussions, "Who would be the best?" etc. A guy is chosen. In this case, the idea is that he will be merely the donor, that he will renounce his parental rights from the get-go. He agrees, papers are signed, etc.
A child is born. The gay guy thinks about it for a few years and says to himself, "Gosh, I have a daughter!" (No shit, Sherlock.) He gets a lawyer. Everyone goes to court, over and over and over. My relative has a near breakdown from the stress. The child, though young, is aware of all this, sees what her mom, and her other mom, and her dad, are going through, and that is not too darn good for her. But "...how utterly familiar and unremarkable" is this family's life.
That's all about my very own family that you're going to get. Now you get to hear about my Former Next Door Neighbor.
True story #3:
We hear loud crying--even howling-- from the patio of the apartment next door. It goes on and on, the most heart-rending sound. We recognize the voice as that of Charles, 18. Turns out that Charles's dad had "the "courage" to "be true to himself" and "come out" about his alternative lifestyle. Well, Charles will never be the same, nor will his mom, nor will anyone else in the family. Probably some therapist told Charles's dad that his self-discipline regarding his strong, un-chosen desires over the years was "dishonesty," but that last is just my own speculation. But that whole scene was, again, "utterly familiar and unremarkable," right?
I cannot respond to everything. You can look up "chastity" in the dictionary. I did try to use the term in such a way that it would be clear that I want the same moral standard for all of us, hetero and homo.
For the record, I consider my two relatives to be better persons than I am. The first one is perhaps the wisest in the family (generally) and the second one is almost a saint in her warmth and kindness.
I hope you can see my point.
Now I have to go to the mail, buy cat food, see about dinner, all activities that are "utterly familiar and unremarkable" even for a raging asshole, bigoted homophobe like myself.
8:04
Wait, how can you such issues to just homosexual relationships or even homosexuals in general?
Parents don't live forever just because they are in a hetero relationship. Shit happens, being gay or straight doesn't matter. Hell, it doesn't even complicate it more. Ya know, I had two parents once; broken up by nasty habits. One cleaned up, "saved" me from the orphanage after 7 days, and the other died 2 years ago (suicide).
My dad is still an asshole, and is on his 3rd marriage. He's a god fearin' good ol' solid "conservative" Republican and #1 American, whose son (my brother) just returned from Iraq, and was kicked out of the house. Oh, and my brother is homeless now by the way. You couldn't count the contradictions in my dad's life if you tried.
I can take you on in a fucked up family fight any day and probably "win." But I know that it's because my family is a bunch of silly fools who don't think. Gay or straight, people will do what people do, i.e. be idiots. There will always be parental deaths (my mom), there will always be custody battles (you know, my friend is a 'test tube baby' with a straight mother capable of having babies via normal means, and no father, and a nasty custody battle), and "nasty" family surprises (my dad caught his second wife cheating for example, and this pretty much put my dad in to an amazing downward spiral and landed my ass on the streets for about an hour before a friendly family took me in).
In short, people are prone to err. I'd say that this is a fundamental principle to consider before you think any further about social topics. People are idiots.
So yeah, when you think about it for a few seconds, it is "utterly familiar, and unremarkable."
OK, this one is your own false dilemma that does not cover the many variables taht could, and do, take place. There will be good and pad parenting, by good and bad hetero and homosexual couples, and nothing's gonna change that.
"Either we allow only poor heterosexual parenting or we allow same-sex parenting. We cannot allow only poor heterosexual parenting. Therefore, we must allow same-sex parenting."
With this one, not sure what "anything goes" means, but if it's a beginning of an end to falsely based discrimination, then I'm all for it.
"Either we attain an falsely idealized heterosexual society, or we have "anything goes" in the name of civil rights.
Can't have a falsely idealized heterosexual society.
So, gotta have "anything goes."
Bohrstein:
It is indeed not "just" about homosexual families. What I was trying to say applies to all families. Your dad, for example, is not much of a "conservative" if he did not "conserve" his first two marriages. Conservatism says, "Hang in there, no matter what." (I also have some expertise in this area.)
My heart goes out to you, your family, and your brother especially. It really does, for what it's worth. I am a veteran too, although not a combat veteran. The story of your brother is heart wrenching.
These various "innovations" in marriage, reproduction, and family life, all perpetrated in the name of individual freedom, don't seem to working out so well for either the hetero or the homo community.
Maybe a wise form of conservatism would recommend that we keep sexuality, marriage, procreation, and child-rearing all strongly connected, instead of allowing them to separate--be blown apart--from each other because separating them seems "permissible" to us.
Sounds like a little Chunk-style conservatism, of the sort he articulated so well and applied to new technologies, could help a lot of our families, hetero or homo.
And now I am happy, because that was my original point.
This sounds nice and all, but why do I get a whiff of religious orthodoxy posing as idealism?
"Maybe a wise form of conservatism would recommend that we keep sexuality, marriage, procreation, and child-rearing all strongly connected, instead of allowing them to separate--be blown apart--from each other because separating them seems "permissible" to us."
The idea is to see how Chunk's principles and concerns in his post about "stupidity and cell phones" would apply to the same-sex marriage issue (and related issues).
Chunk is an atheist. If his principles are sound, and their application to issues of marriage, family, and child-rearing generate certain "conservative" conclusions, we should accept these conclusions whether they agree with "religious orthodoxy" or not.
You certainly don't get a "whiff of religious orthodoxy" from sniffing Chunk.
When you see someone interrelating sexuality with procreation, as if the two are supposed to just go together, then run home and lock the garage.
12:01: Do you run home and "lock the garage" whenever someone "interrelates" consuming food with nutrition, or eyes with vision, or buses with transportation?
I didn't think so.
No, but when someone starts assuming that sexuality means the necessity of ensuing procreation, I know there's trouble a'brewing.
See, let's take it slow. If you have food, it must have some nutritional value. A bus has to be transportive to be a bus.
But sexuality and procreation are two very different things. Yes, you need some form of sex (or technology) to procreate, but many, many people enjoy sexuality without the end result of breeding.
There's some trouble a'brewing too--lots of personal and social problems--when people do not associate sexuality and procreation, or treat them as if "they are two very different things." Separating them, in particular, involves undervaluing sex rather than overvaluing it. And are you sure you want to base your argument as to what is acceptable on "what many, many people enjoy?"
If you ask around, you'll find that many folks do not associate sexuality and procreation. Some people want kids, and many don't. Some have bred, and now just want the intimacy of sexuality.
If you have an agenda that sex should only be for procreation, then you're on a very dangerous path that will lead to massive disharmony.
You also seem to be basing your argument on what people will enjoy--only at the expense of what others happen to like.
I should "ask around?" Is that the way to discover what's right?
Never said that sex should be "only" for procreation, but that the procreative purpose should be recognized and not thrown on the junk heap by any of us.
The "conservative" view, or part of it (remember the context here) holds that marriage, sexuality, procreation, and the rearing of children should be kept together, that keeping them connected is necessary for social stability. Social "innovation" that separates them might cause even bigger problems than abuse of cell phones.
Asking around wouldn't hurt, no.
I'm fine with your concern that if procreation occurs, it's in the context of a good strong relationship. But hopefully you see that sexuality means many things to many people, and marriage is a bond that many wish to enter and have no interest in procreation, both heterosexual and homosexual. That's where you;re heading, right? To deny marriage to people who do not wish to be parents?
No, of course that's not where I am headed. I've made my argument clear enough, but in order to protect it from kidnappers, let me try again.
Jeff Jordan has an article about this issue. I am not going to repeat his argument here; I am making a different and simpler argument than his. But he gives good descriptions of various conceptions of marriage, two of which I will borrow in what follows. (See his "Contra Same-Sex Marriage.")
My point is that we are moving from an understanding of marriage that sees marriage as "...the proper environment for sexuality, procreation, and the rearing of children; marriage and family are the basic units of society, and are necessary for social stability; there is a natural or biological teleology apparent between the male and female-"a two-in-one flesh Communion of person's that is consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type whether or not they are reproductive in effect..." (Note that last part.)
to a model in which marriage is seen only as
"beneficial to the persons involved" and a "transaction regulated by the state."
My own argument here, different from Jordan's, is this: if widely adopting new technologies can cause unexpected and undesirable changes in the way we live together in society, as Chunk argues, then changing our conception of marriage from something like the former "Communional" model to the latter "Transactional" model also might cause unexpected and (even more) undesirable changes in society. Even more undesirable because, under the Communional model, marriage is an essential component of social order, and that element is removed in the Transactional model, which is obviously "designed" to respond to individual desire and choice more than to social need.
Please note that my argument here does not involve privileging either model: I am saying that if what Chunk says about adoption and abuse of cell phones is right, then moving from the Communional model to the Transactional--which is what legalizing same-sex marriage does--may constitute an even more negative and destabilizing change than we realize.
Again, the context here is that I was interested in seeing how Chunk's "conservative" principles in "Stupidity and cell phones" would apply to the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage.
Yet again: If Chunk is right about unreflective, widespread, adoption and use of cell phones, then there is good reason to oppose the current legalized status of same-sex marriage (and such opposition can be articulated without bigotry or intolerance).
This comment also responds to Chunk's point that I only assume that allowing same-sex marriage changes the concept of marriage. I did think the assumption was Absolutely Safe. Jordan's own argument, if you ever encounter it, holds, among other things, that allowing same-sex marriage illiberally privileges, by entrenching in law, the Transactional model.
Soul Man doesnt have a cell phone, I dont need an electronic leash.
I spend the fifty bucks on other things like wine! A man has got to have his priorities.
I still don't know what the hell the term "concept of marriage" means. Sorry, but it's vague and ambiguous.
I hate all phones. Have we all seen the videos on how you can use cellphones to pop corn? Of course they were fakes, made for an ad by a Bluetooth retailer, but it turns out the real danger is not the phone, it's the popcorn! Watch Very Scary Video
Many of you operate like this: you put Tradition on trial, in the court of Reason, with you--Your Own Self--presiding as Judge. (I like how you make yourself Judge. How does that work?)
If you don't like what Tradition says, it doesn't get a fair trial, because you are not as fair as you think you are. Your will can get in the way of your "fairness." (Proof? See 8/08 at 12:50; his/her problem manifests in the understanding, but starts in the will: he/she is "unable to understand" what someone has taken pains to define and explain. 12:50 is just Un-Willing to see the point, and that causes a failure in his or her understanding. That's how we make ourselves less intelligent than we can be.)
OK, so tradition is imperfect and needs amendment and reform. But is tradition ever correct? Is it correct only when you decide to agree with it? Can tradition ever be right when it denies you what you want? Can traditional wisdom ever judge you? Correct you?
Try this: consider letting Tradition judge you once in a while. Turn things around. Let Tradition be the judge, while you sit in the seat of the Accused. Not as much fun, eh? But often quite appropriate. And when we do that, and face the pain of coming out wrong or guilty, we may learn something, and be improved by a standard applied to us that we don't get to set ourselves.
That's the way it is supposed to work, at least sometimes. But we resist because (a) we don't always get what we want, and (b) we are too proud to admit that we can learn from anything outside of ourselves.
Try this: I want X. Tradition says that X is wrong. Tradition, centuries long, often--usually--contains even more wisdom than I have in my own, individual, little self. So I am going to go with tradition, and not just demand that I get what I want. I will not elevate myself and attempt to selfishly, willfully, and STUPIDLY overthrow the wisdom of the ages.
I have to not be incorrigible.
5:06, who exactly are you addressing/challenging? Identify the view and then offer clear grounds for rejecting it. You seem lost in abstraction.
No doubt there have been some “commenters” who have expressed a rejection of the value of “tradition,” but please note that the author of this blog has not taken that view but has (above) articulated and argued for a view in favor of, if not tradition, then the social order as “working” and potentially vulnerable to ill health or worse by incautious or promiscuous change (as, I would argue, is caused largely by our slavishness embrace of commerce and consumerism—a common target of such traditionalists ad Weaver, Ortega, and Oakeshott).
You seem to proceed as though the notion that “tradition” contains wisdom is a premise agreeable to all. But it isn’t. You need to argue for the idea (especially given all of the manifest unwisdom of the ages). That can be done, I think, but you don’t do it. You offer assertions where you need to offer reasons.
I don’t think that the notion of the “wisdom of the ages” is quite laughable (if, that is, it is expressed in somewhat different form). I suggest that we work from already-articulated philosophies. You might want to look up these authors/works:
Ortega’s “Revolt of the Masses”
Richard Weaver’s “Ideas Have Consequences”
Michael Oakeshott’s essay “Rationalism in Politics”
Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind”
As I recall, Kirk makes an effort to lay out the central elements of conservatism, and he includes some form of “wisdom of the ages” among his elements.
Naturally, the big theorist in the background of all this is Edmund Burke, whose “Reflections on the Revolution in France” (and other writings) are widely regarded as classic statements of a broadly conservative (and traditionalist) philosophy. I dislike Burke's writing, but I have never found his ideas to be implausible. And he was, after all, right about the REvolution, which fell into chaos.
Post a Comment