I have exchanged several emails with a well-regarded foreigner who blogs from Taiwan; here is my most recent contribution:
I'm aware of the irony involved in our usage of 'Taiwan independence'--though in practical terms, I think all parties know what we're discussing. The cross-Straits dispute is not, imho, about a misunderstanding of the phrase 'Taiwan independence'.
My question concerns the real-world implications of Taiwan making a clearer declaration of independence; my question does not relate to the underlying reasonableness of such a declaration. The United States cannot afford to watch and wait, of course--it undoubtedly has lines of communication open with Tsai Ing-wen. US diplomats--now--would almost certainly have to be telling DPP leaders that the US will not support a change in Taiwan's stance stressing (moreso than previously) independence or non-ambiguity. If Taiwan's electorate wants to choose a policy change that is anathema to Beijing, the US should make clear that they gamble on their own account. Taiwan independence, we agree, is a reasonable hope--but I don't support it to such a degree that I'd be willing to contribute billions (or soldiers' lives).
Perhaps you think no future statement from a Pres. Tsai could be viewed as provocative by Beijing, since Ma Ying-jeou has already made this statement. Or perhaps you simply don't believe Beijing is serious, with its threats. Or perhaps you think that--with or without cross-Strait hostilities--the US will play no role and thus should have no say. Worry-wart that I am, I take Beijing's threats seriously, I think hostilities would really suck both for the people of Taiwan and for US interests and I believe Beijing is serious with its threats.
Anyway, thanks again for your thoughtful contributions to this discussion--I in no way seek to personalize our variance in outlook, and freely admit that I may be wrong, on big points and on small, and thank the person who can set me straight.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Divorced Parents
Tim Pawlenty earned plaudits today for refusing to sign some ultra-right document for the consumption of Iowa reactionaries. To minimize the damage, he tweeted the word-agglomeration displayed above.
Do people have 'a right' to know what candidates believe? (What specifically is encompassed by such a right?) If so, there's a great deal about which I remain unclear, as to Gov. Pawlenty's beliefs and values.
To use one's affiliation with a socially-approved fantasy-based ideological institution in order to advance a political career should be embarrassing. From within the Baptist worldview, it should be deemed blasphemous. This video is appalling: I call upon Leith Anderson for some expression of embarrassment.
In responding to the request, Pawlenty stated:
IOW, when you see a 'broken' family, Pawlenty advises you to feel moral condemnation toward the parents and compassion toward the children. Should Pawlenty be considered big-hearted for this declaration?
When we observe a 'broken' family, often the assignment of blame--for the break-up--is genuinely quite difficult. When I encounter a parent who is party to a broken marriage, then, I disagree with Gov. Pawlenty: My default setting is to extend compassion to all--and refrain from condemning anyone until strong evidence has come to the fore.
Even when a marriage has come a cropper due to irresponsible adult behavior, I doubt America is improved when I participate in any campaign of social humiliation against a once-errant parent.
Do people have 'a right' to know what candidates believe? (What specifically is encompassed by such a right?) If so, there's a great deal about which I remain unclear, as to Gov. Pawlenty's beliefs and values.
To use one's affiliation with a socially-approved fantasy-based ideological institution in order to advance a political career should be embarrassing. From within the Baptist worldview, it should be deemed blasphemous. This video is appalling: I call upon Leith Anderson for some expression of embarrassment.
In responding to the request, Pawlenty stated:
“I prefer to choose my own words, especially seeking to show compassion to those who are in broken families through no fault of their own,” Pawlenty said today.Pawlenty's ostensibly anti-sanctimony statement is quite interesting then--in that it is itself so sanctimonious. When you observe a non-nuclear family--our former Governor suggests--you should be big-hearted and 'show compassion' to the people not responsible for the family's break-up.
IOW, when you see a 'broken' family, Pawlenty advises you to feel moral condemnation toward the parents and compassion toward the children. Should Pawlenty be considered big-hearted for this declaration?
When we observe a 'broken' family, often the assignment of blame--for the break-up--is genuinely quite difficult. When I encounter a parent who is party to a broken marriage, then, I disagree with Gov. Pawlenty: My default setting is to extend compassion to all--and refrain from condemning anyone until strong evidence has come to the fore.
Even when a marriage has come a cropper due to irresponsible adult behavior, I doubt America is improved when I participate in any campaign of social humiliation against a once-errant parent.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Atheists in Error
I commented on the Dawkins-Watson imbroglio--and find my relationship to feminist- and atheist bloggers much clarified by the tussle. Having enjoyed Amanda Marcotte's appearances on Bloggingheads, I'm surprised her shoddy writing:
...Rebecca Watson, who travels extensively speaking about skepticism and atheism, was at a conference in Ireland and a guy followed her onto an elevator at 4AM and cold propositioned her for sex in this enclosed space without ever speaking to her before. She mentioned it in a vlog that was mostly about other stuff, mainly to illustrate why this behavior is unacceptable and can turn women off from participating in events such as the conference.
In Rebecca Watson's vlog, she does not state being pursued into the elevator. We have one participant's recollection of a conversation. '[C]old propositioned for sex' is utterly false; Watson suggests some previous interaction with the man, most likely within the bar. The quotation Watson attributes to the man is certainly incorrect: It would be odd, ascending within a hotel elevator, to suggest going 'to my hotel room.'
Observing the brouhaha, Watson played coy, suggesting the elevator anecdote was intended as an aside. Skepchick is crying misogyny, grounding her charge in her ostensibly discussion-ending credential--her gender--instead of reason. Her followers--as tasteless as she--are on-board.
Some high-status pro-Watson participant--PZ Myers, perhaps--should say: 'I agree with Rebecca Watson: I also believe men should consider the behavior she is describing out-of-bounds. But many reasonable people take some other position--and therefore Watson should make clear she is not calling them misogynists.'
For a person who so happily assumes the role of ethics adjutant, PZ himself is capable of extreme boorishness: He approvingly posted a noisome Billy Connolly clip the other day. PZ finds this hilarious:
...Never trust people who’ve only got one fuckin’ book. You don’t fuckin’…how did you think they were going to turn out? [simulates Koran reading—cross-eyed, tongue out, head bobbing, charades-masturbating]...
...Your parents choosing your fuckin’ marriage partner—how stupid, don’t be ridiculous, fuckin’ stupid. ‘That’s her over there.’ ‘Which one?’ ‘They’re all the fuckin’ same.’ Black [burka] with a wee fucking window!
Rebecca Watson feels comfortable appearing shoulder-to-shoulder with PZ--within a week of his posting the above. Myself an unapologetic atheist, I don't make a habit of mocking Muslims--as it feeds seamlessly into an all-too-prevalent reactionary cultural wave. Though even as I condemn PZ for the post, I hope I don't come across quite as sanctimoniously as he does.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
On Rebecca Watson
After this article, I mixed it up today in a comments section at The Atlantic, taking a position critical of Rebecca Watson and PZ Myers. Here's what I said:
It's 4 AM and you're a fly on the wall in a Dublin elevator--and two thirtyish people step in. The man says to the woman:"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"
She says 'No'; the two go their separate ways. Your article mentions '...Rebecca Watson's recent experience being propositioned in a hotel elevator.' An offer of coffee now constitutes a proposition? Have we really descended this far?
I defend the right of people to proposition one another--but polite people should take care to phrase their propositions deniably--to reduce discomfort or hurt feelings in the event of non-acceptance. If a coffee offer is now deemed a gnat's-eyelash from rape, I suggest something such as, 'In another country, during another epoch, it would be shocking indeed for a person like me to offer a cup of coffee to a person such as you, wouldn't it?'
Thanks Mike. I have voiced no viewpoint on whether it's a good idea--as that would depend on atmospherics of which neither of us is remotely aware. Sorry if my hyperbole momentarily sidetracked our to-and-fro: Here is the essence of our disagreement: I am not willing to concede that a polite, witty, utterly deniable, dignity-preserving proposition cannot be delivered within the confines of an elevator. You believe the feat impossible. Many positive relationships emerge from extremely unlikely beginnings. My advice: Make no silly categorical concessions.
Okay, so never at 4 AM--is that the take-home message? 1 AM is okay? Quite amusing that you think 'sex' is the thing being objectified: An abstract noun! Again--we observe the puritannical position, seeking to institute universal, international 'culture-neutral' rules, irrespective of the relationship or vibe present between the two adults. Efforts to institute such arbitrary rules strike me as boring. Are all dainty, deniable 'etchings'-like propositions uncaddish? Of course not. Should a universal, situation-independent rule be put in place [2AM: fine / 4AM: misogynist]? No.
Yes--Dawkins crossed the line, as people occasionally do in online debates. He shouldn't have addressed Watson [sic] as 'Muslima' and indeed engaged in considerable stupidity; he allowed Watson to get under his skin--always a dangerous indulgence. Should Dawkins apologize, however, I very much hope he doesn't go back one millimeter on his kernel of common sense: "...the 'slightly bad thing' suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story."
**
I stand corrected--thanks Jerome: Dawkins wasn't addressing Watson, with his 'Dear Muslima'. [Mini-sorry too to Richard Dawkins--who I adore.]
Still--I think that aspect of Dawkins' argument was quite unbeneficial. Had he simply stayed on his fundamental point, without that exasperated-sounding stuff, he'd have been in the clear.
**
It's 4 AM and you're a fly on the wall in a Dublin elevator--and two thirtyish people step in. The man says to the woman:"Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?"
She says 'No'; the two go their separate ways. Your article mentions '...Rebecca Watson's recent experience being propositioned in a hotel elevator.' An offer of coffee now constitutes a proposition? Have we really descended this far?
**
I defend the right of people to proposition one another--but polite people should take care to phrase their propositions deniably--to reduce discomfort or hurt feelings in the event of non-acceptance. If a coffee offer is now deemed a gnat's-eyelash from rape, I suggest something such as, 'In another country, during another epoch, it would be shocking indeed for a person like me to offer a cup of coffee to a person such as you, wouldn't it?'
**
Thanks Mike. I have voiced no viewpoint on whether it's a good idea--as that would depend on atmospherics of which neither of us is remotely aware. Sorry if my hyperbole momentarily sidetracked our to-and-fro: Here is the essence of our disagreement: I am not willing to concede that a polite, witty, utterly deniable, dignity-preserving proposition cannot be delivered within the confines of an elevator. You believe the feat impossible. Many positive relationships emerge from extremely unlikely beginnings. My advice: Make no silly categorical concessions.
**
Thanks for your contribution, drst. I suggest you re-listen to Watson's video: The person was not a complete stranger--nor does she claim he pursued her into the elevator. The quotation Watson attributes to the man is clearly non-verbatim; I would very much like to hear his description of the event. Nice try--and smart of you, imho, to stay anonymous: The training wheels are clearly still needed.
**
Okay, so never at 4 AM--is that the take-home message? 1 AM is okay? Quite amusing that you think 'sex' is the thing being objectified: An abstract noun! Again--we observe the puritannical position, seeking to institute universal, international 'culture-neutral' rules, irrespective of the relationship or vibe present between the two adults. Efforts to institute such arbitrary rules strike me as boring. Are all dainty, deniable 'etchings'-like propositions uncaddish? Of course not. Should a universal, situation-independent rule be put in place [2AM: fine / 4AM: misogynist]? No.
**
You're quite incorrect, Rebecca--that's not at all what Watson and Myers are saying. They are saying that their intuitions should be binding on everyone, because they are based in Awareness and Purity. People who don't see it their way 'just don't get it' = are misogynists, trolls etc. **
Yes--Dawkins crossed the line, as people occasionally do in online debates. He shouldn't have addressed Watson [sic] as 'Muslima' and indeed engaged in considerable stupidity; he allowed Watson to get under his skin--always a dangerous indulgence. Should Dawkins apologize, however, I very much hope he doesn't go back one millimeter on his kernel of common sense: "...the 'slightly bad thing' suffered by Rebecca was not even slightly bad, it was zero bad. A man asked her back to his room for coffee. She said no. End of story."
**
I stand corrected--thanks Jerome: Dawkins wasn't addressing Watson, with his 'Dear Muslima'. [Mini-sorry too to Richard Dawkins--who I adore.]
Still--I think that aspect of Dawkins' argument was quite unbeneficial. Had he simply stayed on his fundamental point, without that exasperated-sounding stuff, he'd have been in the clear.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Propositional Phase
While at an atheists' conference in Dublin recently, Rebecca Watson left a hotel bar at 4 AM. A man with whom she'd been speaking left the barroom bull session and got on the elevator with her. (Watson makes no representation as to being pursued, when entering the lift.) The man then said to her:
No--it's not even a little bit offensive. The man's statement bends over backwards to announce its optionality. As with all polite propositions, it is multiply-veiled and utterly non-coercive--and can even be interpreted as a non-proposition.
Should the man have known better? That's impossible for us to assess, since we didn't observe their interaction at the bar. But given the information Watson has provided, we have no basis for endorsing her feminist apoplexy. The anecdote bears no generalizable Truths on gender norms.
PZ Myers defends Watson's hypersensitive reaction to the man's polite offer. (Calling it a proposition would appear excessive; PZ bites.)
We might note that while in Dublin, Myers tweeted that he refuses to engage with homophobes or misogynists.
I avoid homophobe, as it doesn't quite capture my understanding of anti-homosexual prejudice. But I think I know what PZ Myers means, when he uses it: A homophobe is a person who doesn't accept gay marriage, efforts by schools to prevent the bullying of gay-appearing students or someone who believes God condemns homosexuality--stuff like that. A person who considers being gay to be shameful or disgusting.
A day or two after announcing his categorical refusal to 'engage' with homophobes and misogynists, Dr. Myers spoke with a strong Muslim for 37 minutes, on camera, alongside Watson and others. By Myers' own definition--his IERA interviewee would surely qualify as a homophobe, no?
When someone accuses a person of being a homophobe, the accusation could be adjudicated with reference to statements the person had made. I would resist decreeing eternal punishment against such a person--and so I commend PZ Myers for throwing his tweet out the window and giving dialog a try.
OTOH, what does Dr. Myers mean when he says he refuses interaction with misogynists? Can he define the word? (In local parlance, a misogynist is a person who believes Jeff Fecke has no talent; I pray it carries some other definition on PZ's astral plain?) Is a misogyny-spotter similar to a feng shui master, or can their accusations be interrogated--and conceivably debunked? Are they required to provide evidence--or are their judgments essentially faith-based?
Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?It would be interesting if we could verify the quotation with the unnamed man; it does not sound credible. But let's assume the quotation is truthful. Should we be stunned and nauseated by the lout's utterance?
No--it's not even a little bit offensive. The man's statement bends over backwards to announce its optionality. As with all polite propositions, it is multiply-veiled and utterly non-coercive--and can even be interpreted as a non-proposition.
Should the man have known better? That's impossible for us to assess, since we didn't observe their interaction at the bar. But given the information Watson has provided, we have no basis for endorsing her feminist apoplexy. The anecdote bears no generalizable Truths on gender norms.
PZ Myers defends Watson's hypersensitive reaction to the man's polite offer. (Calling it a proposition would appear excessive; PZ bites.)
We might note that while in Dublin, Myers tweeted that he refuses to engage with homophobes or misogynists.
I avoid homophobe, as it doesn't quite capture my understanding of anti-homosexual prejudice. But I think I know what PZ Myers means, when he uses it: A homophobe is a person who doesn't accept gay marriage, efforts by schools to prevent the bullying of gay-appearing students or someone who believes God condemns homosexuality--stuff like that. A person who considers being gay to be shameful or disgusting.
A day or two after announcing his categorical refusal to 'engage' with homophobes and misogynists, Dr. Myers spoke with a strong Muslim for 37 minutes, on camera, alongside Watson and others. By Myers' own definition--his IERA interviewee would surely qualify as a homophobe, no?
When someone accuses a person of being a homophobe, the accusation could be adjudicated with reference to statements the person had made. I would resist decreeing eternal punishment against such a person--and so I commend PZ Myers for throwing his tweet out the window and giving dialog a try.
OTOH, what does Dr. Myers mean when he says he refuses interaction with misogynists? Can he define the word? (In local parlance, a misogynist is a person who believes Jeff Fecke has no talent; I pray it carries some other definition on PZ's astral plain?) Is a misogyny-spotter similar to a feng shui master, or can their accusations be interrogated--and conceivably debunked? Are they required to provide evidence--or are their judgments essentially faith-based?
Monday, July 4, 2011
America Is Not The World
Is America the world?
If you love America, I would be more impressed if you could find something truthful to say about it, Congressman Paulsen. The quotation you've selected isn't true--it's insipid.
After pondering Paulsen's Ben Franklin quotation, I did a bit of Googling--and quickly learned that contemporary scholars do not find Paulsen's attribution credible. (You can view all sourced Franklin sentences here.)
When our US Congressman makes a statement which is immediately demonstrated to be factually incorrect, I believe he has an obligation to publish a revisal.
I have tweeted to Paulsen twice, politely telling him that he owes us a correction: He should state that he is now aware that his Franklin quotation is apocryphal--that no serious scholar currently attributes the quotation to Franklin.
As upright citizens, we have a duty to communicate to our Congressman that we don't enjoy being lied to; when he publicly states a known falsehood, he should feel pressure to update the record.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
