Everyone Is a Sith

[chat] Shaped Puppy

2012-02-25T23:59:00.003-05:00

It likes to be rubbed.

Terry O'Neill: (~C Tu is ~C Si) & ~ (Tu is Si)

2012-02-20T22:16:00.008-05:00

On this evening’s episode of the Ed Show, Terry O’Neill, president of N.O.W., stated that the Virginia Transvaginal Ultrasound Bill amounts to state-sanctioned rape.

Terry O’Neill: To take that experience and make it state mandated, even when it is medically inappropriate, there are a number of women who have begun to say let's look at the state definition in fact the new FBI definition of rape. And that would include vaginal penetration against the will without the consent of the woman. now --

Ed: Is it rape in your opinion?

Terry O’Neill: I think it is.

Ed: You do think it's rape?

Terry O’Neill: I think it is, Ed, I do.

Ed: Clearly it's something that a woman would be forced to do so she would lose control of her body.

Terry O’Neill: It's non-consensual. If it's non-consensual penetration of her vagina I don't know what else you call it but rape.

Last Friday I posted about this. Apparently I was not clear enough. So, let’s try this again, in the form of a dialog.

Terry: A non-consensual transvaginal ultrasound is rape.

Jay: Rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse, yes?

Terry: Of course.

Jay: So a non-consensual transvaginal ultrasound is non-consensual sexual intercourse?

Terry: Yes. That’s what I said!

Jay: So a consensual transvaginal ultrasound is consensual sexual intercourse?

Terry: Not at all! I never said that!

Jay: For simplicity’s sake, let’s utilize the following abbreviations for the rest of the argument:

Non-Consensual: ~C
Consensual: C
Transvaginal Ultrasound: Tu
Sexual Intercourse: Si
Rape: R

Agreed?

Terry: That’s fine.

Jay: So,

~C Tu is R
R is ~C Si
---
Therefore: ~C Tu is ~C Si

Terry: Yes. ~C Tu is ~C Si. And ~C Si is R. So, ~C Tu is R!

Jay: Now, watch what happens when we remove the ~C from each side: Tu is Si.

Terry: YOUR LOGIC HAS WARPED MY WORDS!

Jay: No, my symbolization of your argument belied the fundamental problem with your position: you have argued that Tu is Si.

Terry: But it’s obviously not the case that Tu is Si.

Jay: Then how are you arguing that ~C Tu is ~C Si?

Terry: Your symbols are blurring the argument; when there is no consent, the insertion of a probe into a vagina is rape. But when there is consent, it’s just a medical procedure.

Jay: Isn’t it a medical procedure in both cases?

Terry: Yes, but the medical procedure forced on women by this bill is unnecessary.

Jay: That doesn’t change its being a medical procedure.

Terry: Alright. But it’s still rape!

Jay: You seem to be claiming that where consent is not present, sexuality is present.

Terry: Yes! Exactly! The lack of consent makes the procedure sexual.

Jay: Is that the case with any act to which one does not consent?

Terry: Well, not any act. Only sexual acts!

Jay: So, a transvaginal ultrasound is a sexual act?

Terry: No, of course not! It’s only sexual when there is no consent!

Jay: What makes a ~C Tu a sexual act?

Terry: They’re inserting a probe into a woman’s vagina against her will!

Jay: And the insertion of a probe into a vagina is sexual?

Terry: No! Of course it isn’t! It’s only sexual when it’s not consensual!

Jay: I can understand how a sexual act is a sexual act, and a non-consensual act is a non-consensual act. I don’t understand how you’re relating a lack of consent to a presence of sexuality.

Terry: It is sexual because they are inserting a probe into a woman’s vagina!

Jay: That’s what they do in a consensual transvaginal ultrasound. But when they insert a probe into a vagina, within a context of consent, you don’t think that’s sexual.

Terry: Of course it isn’t sexual; it’s a medical procedure.

Jay: But when they perform the exact same medical procedure within a non-consensual context that medical procedure, which is not sexual in a consenting context, becomes sexual?

Terry: Exactly.

Jay: So where there is no consent, there is sexuality?

Terry: No!

Jay: But the lack of consent for these transvaginal ultrasounds makes them sexual?

Terry: Obviously.

I don’t know how to make Terry’s position sensible, unless we maintain (C Tu is C Si). If we aren’t going to do that, then we’re left with a very bizarre position wherein the absence of consent yields a presence of sexuality.

Which, by the way, is fucked up.

Purple Cabbage is [chat]y

2012-02-18T23:59:00.000-05:00

Purple Cabbage is like a freaky alien cocoon.

Transvaginal Ultrasound: Rape?

2012-02-17T05:14:00.004-05:00

Virginia is on the verge of passing a bill that would require a woman seeking an abortion to undergo a state-required transvaginal ultrasound. For some reason I do not understand some people want to call this state-sanctioned rape. I think the term “rape” is inapplicable to this situation. We can say the bill is repulsive. We can say it violates a woman’s privacy. But “rape” isn’t a word that applies to the situation, given Virginia’s definition of rape:

§ 18.2-61. Rape.
A. If any person has sexual intercourse with a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, or causes a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, to engage in sexual intercourse with any other person and such act is accomplished (i) against the complaining witness's will, by force, threat or intimidation of or against the complaining witness or another person; or (ii) through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness; or (iii) with a child under age 13 as the victim, he or she shall be guilty of rape.

Here’s my argument: Rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse. The insertion of an ultrasound probe into a vagina is not sexual intercourse. Therefore, etc.

Some people take issue with my argument. They want to insist the bill would result in women being raped by the state. To explain why I think their position is foolish, I shall utilize this handy-dandy chart:

Object:	Probe	Probe
Action:	Insertion	Insertion
Sex Organ:	Vagina	Vagina
Consent?	No	Yes
Label:	State-Sanctioned Rape	Transvaginal ultrasound
Sex Act?	-	-

My argument lives in that last row. Either:

1) All transvaginal ultrasounds are sex acts.
2) The lack of consent renders an act to be sex.

Both of these options are fucked up.

My guess is that most of my interlocutors would go with option two. But if the insertion of a probe for a medical procedure is not sex, then how does that change when the medical procedure is not consensual? They would have to say that force causes the act to be sex; the label “sex” applies when an act is forced on an individual. But there are plenty of actions imposed upon individuals that are not considered to be sex despite the presence of force. If the state forces you to pay a speeding fine that is not “rape”.

Maybe the issue is that genitals are involved. It’s not the force; it’s the insertion of a probe into a vagina. But that would seem to favor option one: All transvaginal ultrasounds are sex acts. Yet I doubt that a woman would think her partner reasonable if he accused her of infidelity after visiting her gynecologist. I’m pretty sure that we don’t want to consider any insertion of anything into a vagina to be sex.

So why are some calling this "rape"? Fuck if I know.

I understand that we’re against this bill. I understand that it abuses women, that it violates their privacy. But we don’t gain anything by calling this “rape”; the invocation of the term is not beneficial to our cause. We can find fault with the bill and fight against it without calling it “rape”.

Why do we need to invoke that term?

Oklahoma Personhood Act: Miscarriage is Manslaughter

2012-02-16T08:53:00.003-05:00

If you are in favor of the Oklahoma Personhood Act, then you are an unreflective, unthinking moron.

Given the nature of ethical or moral claims, one can allow for some divergence between different person’s beliefs. If you, like Kant, believe it is always wrong to lie, and I maintain that there are some situations within which lying is ethically permissible, then we can discuss our contending ethical positions in a thoughtful, rational manner. After some argument, we’ll find that the differences in our ethical positions ultimately result from our differing primary assumptions about reality. Once we realize this, we can respectfully agree to disagree, each person maintaining their own self-consistent system.

But when it comes to legality, we leave the realm of personal conviction and enter into the social, legal, aspect of life. We’re no longer pleasantly philosophizing over inconsequential self-conceptions of what shall or shan’t be considered “naughty”, but rather find ourselves creating the rulesets by which persons can or cannot be sent to prison.

This is why the Oklahoma Personhood Act is immensely stupid. By mistaking a moral / ethical argument for a legal argument, the shitheads who think that zygotes look really cute in onesies completely blind themselves to the legal consequences of their idiotic position. They want abortion to be illegal, and they don’t care much for contraception. But instead of dealing with these particular issues, they cast aside nuance and specificity in favor of the “idea” that if they can get zygotes the legal status of persons, then everything will just take care of itself: If an embryo is a person, then abortion kills a person, and so abortion is murder. Take that Roe V. Wade!

It’s cute an all, but perhaps the dipshits ought to consider these realities:

1) If a zygote is a person, then a miscarriage is involuntary manslaughter.
In a miscarriage, the fetus ceases to perform the acts of a fetus and, so, “dies”. If a fetus is a person, then a miscarriage results in the death of a person. If you support the Oklahoma Personhood Act, then you support the idea that a woman who has a miscarriage ought to be charged with involuntary manslaughter, since she involuntarily manslaughtered a person, in your feeble little mind.

2) If a zygote is a person, then in vitro fertilization is mass murder.
In vitro fertilization costs a lot of money. Because of this, doctors usually implant more than one fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus, in order to increase the likelihood of a pregnancy. Let’s say that a doctor implants five fertilized eggs in a uterus. In the best case, four of those “persons” will die. Who goes to jail for those deaths? Do we punish the woman, the doctor? Is the sperm donor an accomplice?

3) If a zygote is a person, then IUD means intrauterine DEATH.
This one is tricky, since we apparently don’t know how IUDs work. But here’s the idea: If an IUD works by irritating the walls of the uterus so that a fertilized egg cannot implant, then an IUD kills a person. Instead of growing within the uterus, the person ends up being flushed down the pisser. Now, I’m pretty sure that if you flushed a five year old down the toilet that’d be murder. Therefore, etc.

These three examples capture the general concept that a non-retard will grasp less than two minutes after reading the Oklahoma Personhood Act. If a fertilized egg has the legal status of a “person”, then we’re cast into a legal chaos wherein miscarriage, in vitro fertilization, contraception, and being a sexually active woman are basically all tantamount to murder.

Of course, the idiots over at personhoodkansas.com would categorize the above as all “scare tactics”. According to their F.A.Q., nothing that I have said is true, and I’m just a big foolish meany-head who hates Jesus and human life.

But they’re liars. They have to lie. Because when you’re a fetus fetishizing fuck, the only way to get people to listen, and the only way to make legal progress for your antiquated positions, is to lie about them.

The first lie, of course, being that this is a person:

Ricky Gervais: Panda Fucking

2012-02-15T20:55:00.000-05:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Ricky Gervais

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Puppies: For Caleb

2012-02-15T19:11:00.001-05:00

Seems like a good way to deal with your puppy issues.

Happy Anna Howard Shaw Day

2012-02-14T13:20:00.002-05:00

Happy Anna Howard Shaw Day, everyone!

Mormonism: Your Own Universe

2012-02-14T00:38:00.003-05:00

Over the past few weeks I’ve talked with some delightful Mormon missionaries about their theological system. During our first meeting I asked how Mormons can get their own planet after they die. The Mormons replied that the story takes a while to tell, so they’d have to come back later to explain it. Last Friday was the day of explanation. Having learned how to get my own universe, I herein pass on the information I learned regarding…

WHAT MORMONS ACTUALLY BELIEVE!

or

Jesus Has His Own Planet, And You Can, Too!

Once upon a time, Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father were floating around with their flock of spirit-babies. Heavenly Father (hereafter referred to as ‘God’) decided that He wanted to enable His spirit-babies to become more like Him, but this could not happen while floating around. So, He devised a plan and presented the plan at the Celestial Counsel.

At the Counsel, God presented His plan for how to enable the spirit-babies to become Gods. Jesus would create a planet (earth) upon which the spirit-babies could be embodied and prepare for their future as Gods. Satan, Jesus’ brother, presented an alternate plan whereby every spirit-baby would be embodied with full, certain knowledge and so bypass the need for trials or growth. The two plans were put to a vote. 1/3 of the attendees voted for Satan’s plan while 2/3 voted for God’s plan. When Satan lost the vote he became pissed off and he and his 1/3 were cast out of the Counsel, forever doomed to be pissed off.

Having won the vote, Jesus created the Earth and placed upon it Adam and Eve, who went on to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. After they ate from this tree, God placed cherubim, with a flaming sword, in the Garden of Eden, which was in Missouri, to keep them from eating from the Tree of Life. You see, had they eaten from the Tree of Life, they would have become immortal, which is different from having eternal life, and their immortality would have prevented them from following Heavenly Father’s plan.

Heavenly Father’s plan is for the earth to be a state of preparation for eternal life with Him. Additionally, the earth is required for persons to have bodies, which is a higher state of being than mere spirits. Since God has a body, He wants his spirit-babies to have bodies as well.

One should note that since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they and their offspring exist in a fallen state. But what is passed on to the offspring is the fallen state and not any particular sin. You see, every person is born (embodied) sinless, and remains sinless until they are eight years old. Once a person is eight years old, they are capable of sinning, since they are capable of understanding and making decisions.

So, now we have Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father watching over their newly embodied, fallen, spirit babies on the Earth Jesus created in accord with Heavenly Father’s plan, for which 2/3 of all existing entities, ever, voted. You’re probably thinking, “-J-, this all makes perfect sense, but I want to know about getting my own universe!” Patience. First, we have to talk about death!

Every embodied spirit-baby who lives upon the earth Jesus created shall eventually die physically. When the embodied spirit-baby physically dies, its body dies but its spirit goes on to the Spirit world. The Spirit World is sort of a waiting room wherein the spirit-babies wait for the final judgment. The Spirit world is divided into two sections: Paradise and Prison.

Paradise is a peaceful realm of the Spirit World wherein those who are faithful to Jesus wait for the final judgment. Prison is a realm of the Spirit world wherein the unfaithful, or those who did not know of Jesus, unhappily wait for judgment. One interesting feature of the Spirit World is that those who are in Paradise can travel to Prison and teach those who are in Prison about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I asked my Mormon friends if the spirit-babies in Prison are able to migrate up to Paradise from Prison if they repent. They said it would make sense for the spirit-babies to be able to migrate if they repent, but ultimately the answer is not known.

Once every spirit-baby has been embodied, lived upon the earth Jesus created, and died we move on to the resurrection and Final Judgment. At the resurrection, every spirit-baby shall be re-embodied. Then God shall cast the Final Judgment on all of his embodied spirit-babies. Depending on the life the embodied spirit-baby lived on earth, and what it did in the Spirit World, and whether it was baptized after death by a relative, that embodied spirit-baby will be placed in one of three Kingdoms of Glory, or cast into the outer darkness.

Celestial Kingdom: This is the Kingdom within which Heavenly Father and Christ reside. If you were awesome, you get to exist here.

Terrestrial Kingdom: Those who do not accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but were fairly nice, dwell here.

Telestial Kingdom: Those who do not repent and continually sin shall be placed here.

Outer Darkness: Those who, like Satan, know the full Gospel but deny it are cast into the outer darkness.

Here’s where the “I get my own universe” happens. Since we are all the offspring of Heavenly Mother and Heavenly Father we are all brothers and sisters of Christ, who is also one of their offspring. All of those entities who are placed in the Celestial Kingdom are on the same level as Christ. Since Christ is a God, every spirit-baby in the Celestial Kingdom is also a God. Since Christ could create the earth and its universe, so too can any spirit-baby in the Celestial Kingdom create its own universe. Finally, since God wanted to enacted His own plan for His spirit-babies, and His spirit-babies are made in His image, each of these spirit-babies will want to create its own universe for its own spirit-babies.

So, if an embodied spirit-baby is placed within the Celestial Kingdom at Final Judgment, it has the ability to create its own universe and planets.

It’s just that simple.

One of the things I like about this story is that it takes seriously the familial structure of the God-Jesus-You narrative. God is the Holy Father. Jesus is God’s son. But we’re all God’s children. So, it doesn’t make sense to posit an ontological difference between Jesus and any of the other spirit-babies. Once we get that up and running, the “Your Own Universe” narrative follows fairly well.

Of course, that’s going to sound a lot like polytheism, insofar as any spirit-baby has the potential to be a God. The distinction they made is that they aren’t polytheists because they only believe in one Heavenly Father. However, they explained the trinity as three separate entities* that are “one in purpose”. My suspicion is that they’d be comfortable with the “polytheism” label if it didn’t come with all the baggage. Or maybe they’re monotheist because Heavenly Father is the one supreme God, and all the other Gods are little ‘g’ Gods? I’m not sure. That might be the question for next time.

I also like the distinction between “original sin” and “fallen nature”.

It's an interesting theological system, and it seems just as crazy as any other. So, I'm thinkin' about it...

* When Jesus was on the Cross, He called out to God. If Jesus was God, He wouldn't have needed to call anything out; one does not call things out to one's self. On this count, I think the "one in purpose" is a far more sensible articulation than "three forms of the same being SHUT UP".

Whitney Houston: Rest In Peace

2012-02-12T05:36:00.006-05:00

I'm not sure how to say this.

I was watching Iron Man 2, tossing back far too many martinis, and checked Huffingtonpost.com to find that Whitney Houston had died.

We have a eulogy tag because we like to make little posts when people die. In the past they seem to have been merely the obligatory recognitions of the passing of yet another celebrity life. I mean, it was sad when George Carlin died, when Kurt Vonnegut died, because of the lasting impact they had on our developmental selves and their eternal influence upon our lives.

But the thought I have, that continues to reverberate in my reptilian brain, is that we've lost the woman who sang this:

That seems significant.

I'm not sure how you feel about music, how you consider its influence upon your life. But, take a moment to listen to that song...and at least try to appreciate the talent we've lost this day.

...

And then after you've had that emotional appreciation of the loss, listen to this wonderful young asian of excellent repute:

We're all replaceable....by androgynous asians.

Tom Brady, Captain of the Fail[chat]

2012-02-11T23:59:00.000-05:00

Oh, Tom Brady. Your tears are so delicious.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

2012-02-10T09:24:00.001-05:00

A thousand times yes.

Santorum gets 3-Way from Frothing Mad Conservatives

2012-02-08T05:24:00.006-05:00

A spunky Santorum covered the spread in Colorado, Missouri, and Minnesota by reaching around frontrunner Mitt Romney to secure three primary victories. Moving from a number two position to climb on top as number one, Santorum came from behind to collapse the integrity of Romney's erect position as frontrunner for the Republican nomination. A throbbing load of votes actualized a social-conservative wet dream, causing Romney's momentum to go down licket-split. While Romney is far from creamed by this loss, it may prod some to ask whether this spike in Santorum's appeal will cause buttloads of pundits to consider whether this lack of excitement will ream Romney in the end.

When asked for comment, the Romney camp stated, "Santorum may have shot his load today. These results are nuts, but we'll ride this out till the climax."

A Santorum spokesman replied, "We're trying to fit this win into our tight plan, and not come across as too cocky."

3DS for $150

2012-02-07T22:01:00.003-05:00

The 3DS is available for $150 at Gamestop.

Worth it? Or wait for a redesign / further price cut?

The Avengers: Extended Trailer

2012-02-06T04:11:00.001-05:00

I have an army.

We have a hulk.

Business: The noblest of human [chat]s

2012-01-28T23:59:00.000-05:00

"Contrary to the President's constant disparagement of people in business, it's one of the noblest of human pursuits."
- Mitch Daniels

Spongebob Voice Actors Dub Classic Movies

2012-01-25T00:07:00.001-05:00

Mitt Romney is a Serial [chat]er

2012-01-21T23:59:00.000-05:00

WoW: Pet Battles

2012-01-17T01:33:00.009-05:00

I mentioned to Kyle that WoW will have pet battles in Mists of Panderia, but that little information was available. Information is now available.

Long story short?

It's Pokemon.

Kill Jong [chat]

2012-01-14T23:59:00.001-05:00

Taking a lesson in propaganda from Vladimir Putin.

Paul Rudd Rapping.

2012-01-09T22:04:00.000-05:00

Kinda.

A slightly less offensive [chat]

2012-01-07T23:59:00.002-05:00

Step One

2012-01-07T04:07:00.001-05:00

Iowa Live Chat

2012-01-03T21:42:00.002-05:00

No matter who wins, we all lose.

Meme [chat] 2011

2011-12-31T23:59:00.000-05:00

Vote for the Best Meme of 2011:

Rebecca Black’s “Friday”
First World Problems
Occupy Wall Street
Planking
Scumbag Steve
X All the Y!
Nope! Chuck Testa
Nyan Cat
60s Spider-Man
My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic

2011-12-27T16:35:00.000-05:00

I know I'm late for Christmas, but....

39 Degrees North Presents: GUNDOG from 39 Degrees North on Vimeo.

Thanks, 39 Degrees N studios!

Origins of Festivus

2011-12-26T03:21:00.002-05:00

Huffingtonpost.com has an article about the origins of Festivus.

It says where Festivus came from.

Can I interest you in [chat]ukah?

2011-12-24T23:59:00.000-05:00

THEY ARE CANDLES!

That's what Christmas is all about, Charlie Brown

2011-12-24T12:05:00.001-05:00

A Charle Brown Christmas

2011-12-22T12:05:00.000-05:00

This really brings Christmas close to a person.

Existentially Consternated Owl Tea Set

2011-12-21T17:36:00.004-05:00

I have obtained the greatest tea set in the history of ever.

They look as confused as I felt when I saw them: Owls are not cups.
Who would drink tea from an owl? Who?

Here they are taking a bubble bath:

Who? Who would make an owl tea set?! Who?

A Woodland Critter Christmas

2011-12-20T12:05:00.002-05:00

"God damnit this is fucking ridiculous," said the little boy in the red poofball hat.

In Memory: Kim Jong Il

2011-12-19T05:23:00.001-05:00

At least he isn't ronery anymore.

How the Grinch Stole Christmas

2011-12-19T04:46:00.002-05:00

And the Grinch, with his Grinch-feet ice cold in the snow stood puzzling and puzzling.
How could it be so?
It came without ribbons!
It came without tags!!
It came without packages, boxes, or bags!!!
He puzzled and puzz'd 'till his puzzler was sore.
Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before.
Maybe Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store?
Maybe Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more?

Teach me how to understand [chat]mas

2011-12-17T23:59:00.000-05:00

Eventually you hit a point of diminishing returns on the [chat]yness.

Songs for Paper Writing: Miko Miko Nurse

2011-12-16T14:16:00.000-05:00

It kills sadness.

Tycho on Art

2011-12-14T19:25:00.001-05:00

I don’t think I’ve ever read a definition for art that wasn’t stupid. Generally speaking, when a person constructs a thought-machine of this kind, what they’re actually trying to do is determine what isn’t art. I have always been white trash, and will never cease to be so; what that means is that I was raised with an inherent distrust in the Hoity and a base and brutal urge to dismantle the Toity. This is sometimes termed anti-intellectualism, usually by intellectuals, when what it is in truth is an opposition to intellect for intellect’s sake. The reality is that what “is” and “isn’t art” is something we can determine with a slider in our prefrontal cortex.

If this thought-machine had any purpose other than to create a world with less art, I could cut it some slack. But it doesn’t. Its entire purpose is to rarify art, controlling expression thereby. The aperture must be cinched, and quickly, before someone creates a cultural product without elite imprimatur. Its effete and its fucking disgusting.

Source

Diablo 3: Opening Cinematic

2011-12-14T19:08:00.001-05:00

"You have quite a treasure there in that OH FUCKS BURNING!!"

How The Grinch Stole [chat]mas

2011-12-10T23:59:00.000-05:00

Welcome [chat]mas, fah who rah-moose
Welcome [chat]mas, dah who dah-moose
[chat]mas day will always be
Just so long as we have we

It's time to be festive, assholes!

WoW: Aubrey Plaza

2011-12-07T00:38:00.002-05:00

Songs for Paper Writing: Super Bass

2011-12-06T00:14:00.001-05:00

Louis C.K. honors George Carlin

2011-12-05T03:39:00.001-05:00

Cluck You, [chat]

2011-12-03T23:59:00.000-05:00

High Quality Version

Walking on (x2) Kickin' Ass

2011-12-02T00:12:00.003-05:00

Some assnoob bet me tonight's dinner tab that the lyrics are:
Walking on
Walking on
Walking on
Broken Glass.

Needless to say, I really wish he'd gone double-or-nothing on the lyrics to:

Also, is that Dr. Phil on keyboards?

WoW 4.3: OH NOES, A DAGRON!

2011-11-30T14:43:00.001-05:00

The Wrong Decision: Booyah

2011-11-30T02:55:00.006-05:00

Mathematical problems have right or wrong, correct or incorrect, answers as a result of mathematics being a formalized structure of definite abstract rules. Within a system, such as basic arithmetic, we can define “2”, “3”, “5”, “+”, and “=” in such a manner as to create a context wherein “2 + 3 = 5” is correct. In saying that this is correct, what we mean is that it follows the rules. We could construct a different system of rules wherein “2 + 3 = 5” is incorrect if we modify the definitions of those symbols. The meanings of the symbols, and the rules by which the symbols are arranged, result from people, because people are the ones who made this shit up in the first place.

There is no inherent metaphysical relation between the goofy-ass symbol of “2” and some intrinsic meaning within the fundamental structure of reality; mathematics is not a manifestation or mirroring of reality. It is a tool, constructed by human beings, for getting along in reality. One never encounters the perfectly mirrored ontological referent for “two”, “2”, “II” out there in “the world”, but rather one understands the various things into which one bumps in terms of that abstract symbolic representation of a concept.

I realize this is a problematic notion for some, as they maintain that 2 is, supposedly, easily found in situations of grouping. So, think of it this way: Have you ever encountered a triangle in reality? Have you ever encountered a slice of pizza, a corn kernel, or even a component of a bridge that was a triangle? I contend that you have not. They might be vaguely triangular, or kinda approximately triangular, but one never bumps into actual triangles. Because, at the very least, triangles only exist in 2-dimensional Euclidean space, and you’ve never been there.

The meanings of mathematical statements are found in a realm of abstraction; triangles occur in 2-dimensional Euclidean space. We apply these abstract notions to reality, but the reality to which these symbols are applied is neither abstract, clear, nor distinct; we do not live our everyday lives in 2-dimensional Euclidean space. Life is very messy, mathematical abstractions are very neat and tidy, and so we understand reality in terms of our abstractions in an effort to simplify the vague generalities of reality with which our minds have difficulty coping.

We good? Alright. Now, let’s talk about ethics and morality.

You might be surprised to learn that ethical and moral norms are akin to the norms of mathematics: They are abstractions that are not found in reality, but rather are applied to reality by persons. In the same way that we never bump into a triangle, we never bump into good. Rather, we apply our abstract notion of good to vague situations that seem to kinda jive with our conception, or definition, of goodness. Similarly, we never bump into wrong, but find ourselves in vague situations to which we apply the label “wrong”.

We define the moral “wrong”, or bad, in the same way that we define “triangle”. We conceive of an abstract realm of definite clarity and posit ethical and moral norms within that realm. So, we get “killing is wrong” or “infidelity is immoral” or “lying is bad” up and running in our realm of abstraction, then attempt to live our lives by applying these abstractions to our everyday existence. Everything works fine, for about two seconds, and then we find ourselves in Nazi Germany, hiding jews in our attic, only to be confronted by a stormtrooper at our door who asks, “Are there any jews in your attic?”

Gosh, wouldn’t you know it? Our clearly defined rule of “lying is bad” just doesn’t fucking work anymore because life is far more vague, messy, and ambiguous than the ideal realm within which we fabricated the childishly simplistic rule! Unless, of course, you contend that the correct action is to tell the Nazi the truth.

In the same way that life is not the sort of thing that contains triangles, life is not the sort of thing that contains absolute, clear, discrete instances of moral rightness or wrongness, ethical correctness or incorrectness. These are notions that arise from a realm of abstraction, a realm of mental conceptions.

There are times when these abstract terms may be utilized within life: A 2nd grader can write “2 + 3 = 5” and the teacher can write, “correct” without encountering any sort of ontological or epistemological dilemma. A pupil may tell an instructor, “Cheating is wrong!” and receive a preferable grade. But when we go beyond the naivety of the classroom and find ourselves mucking about in the vagaries of reality we find that our simplistic arithmetic understandings of reality do not jive with our experience.

Two cups of popcorn plus two cups of milk does not equal four cups of popcorn-milk.

Saying, “Yes, there are jews in my attic.” to a Nazi is not morally praiseworthy.

Shit be complicated.

Human beings construct abstract conceptual tools to get along in the world. But we have to remember that there is a distinction to be made between the abstract concept and the world. There is a distinction to be made between a triangle and a slice of pizza. There is a distinction to be made between our conceptions of moral and ethical norms and the everyday situations within which we find ourselves while living our lives.

This is why, when confronted with a decision between multiple options, there is no inherently “wrong” decision. One can define option-A or option-B as the “wrong” option, but that wrongness is not found in reality. Reality is not the sort of thing that has wrong decisions; “wrong” is something that occurs in our mind, in our conceptual toolbag of abstractions.

Just like a triangle.

It’s easy, and comforting, to pretend that life is a realm of black and white, of definite right and wrong, correct and incorrect. But when we progress beyond the mentality of a six year old, and perceive reality as it actually is, we begin to understand that our moral and ethical norms are akin to our mathematical tools: They are shit we made up. We constructed math because we wanted reality to be knowable, controllable, and so we subjected reality to a system of abstraction that is easily understood. We constructed morality and ethics because we’re terrified of the fact that you can smash my skull with a rock while I sleep, and I can smash your skull with a rock while you sleep. So, best to construct a moral rule that renders “skull smashing” to be wrong and really, really, hope that no one ever questions why they follow it.

This is not to say that morality and ethics are stupid or useless. Rather, I’m trying to communicate the idea that morality and ethics are like mathematics: They are ideals that help us deal with reality, rather than mirror reality. They are tools for our mucking about in our lives. Sometimes different situations require different tools. Sometimes we’re dealing with Euclidean triangles. Sometimes we’re dealing with non-Euclidean triangles. And sometimes we’re dealing with slices of pizza. We employ different abstract tools in different situations. So, it makes sense that we would employ different abstract rules for morality and ethics in different situations.

Lying is neither right nor wrong, correct nor incorrect, good nor bad. Lying is the act of knowingly deceiving another. The moral or ethical value of a lie depends upon the moral or ethical ruleset by which that lie is assessed and the context within that ruleset is employed. Are you deceiving a Nazi? Are you deceiving a friend? Are you deceiving a stranger? In each of these cases deception occurs, but in none of these cases did a good, bad, moral right, or ethical wrong occur. Because good, bad, moral right, or ethical wrong are labels we apply to actions when we subject those actions to our ethical or moral rulesets.

And since we made all of this shit up in the first place, we can change it at our leisure.

Which, by the way, is a truth that Jeff Winger discovered as a child:

What is this, Horse[chat]?

2011-11-26T23:59:00.000-05:00

Cuz I am surrounded by naysayers!

Wordplay.

Can’t & Won’t: Two Different Words

2011-11-23T03:50:00.002-05:00

It seems to be the case that people are confused about the definitions of can’t and won’t. I think this confusion is problematic. By using these terms interchangeably, or in the wrong way, one creates a psychological problem for oneself by conceiving of one’s situation incorrectly. So, this rant isn’t about clarity of language so much as it is about psychological, mental health. Once we understand the difference between can’t and won’t, we can employ these terms correctly and deal reality as it actually is. In order to understand the difference between can’t and won’t, begin by considering these two sentences:

(A) I can’t have a baby.
(B) I won’t have a baby.

Ponder those for a moment. What is the difference between A and B?

CAN’T indicates an impossibility. If I can’t do X, then it is impossible for me to do X.
One can translate any utterance of “I can’t X” with “It is impossible for me to X”.

WON’T indicates a lack of willingness or volition, a choosing otherwise. If I won’t do X, then I am unwilling to do X.
One can translate any utterance of “I won’t X” with “I am unwilling to X.”

Now that we’ve squared away those definitions, let’s test what we’ve learned by considering these pairs of sentences to determine the sentence in each pair that utilizes the term can’t / won’t correctly:

(A1) I can’t have a baby, because of my hysterectomy.
(A2) I can’t have a baby, because I am a busy lawyer.

(B1) I won’t have a baby, because of my hysterectomy.
(B2) I won’t have a baby, because I am a busy lawyer.

A1 and B2 are linguistically correct statements. A2 and B1 are wrongheaded nonsense. Let’s assess each sentence.

A1: A1 correctly indicates an impossibility. A hysterectomy is the surgical removal of a uterus. A uterus is required for having a baby. It is impossible for a woman who has no uterus to have a baby. Therefore, it is correct to say that hysterectomy woman CAN’T have a baby.

B2: B2 confuses impossibility with unwillingness. Since some lawyers have babies it is incorrect to state that it is impossible for a lawyer to have a baby.

B1: Since a hysterectomy renders an individual incapable of having a baby, it is incorrect to say that hysterectomy woman won’t have a baby. While there is no baby to be had, the lack of a baby does not result from a lack of desire or willingness. Instead, the lack of a baby results from an impossibility of there being a baby.

B2: B2 correctly indicates a lack of willingness. It is possible for a lawyer to have a baby. Therefore, the won’t in B2 correctly identifies a lack of willingness instead of a lack of possibility.

Having assessed the definitions of can’t and won’t via these examples, we now understand the difference between can’t and won’t, and the situations in which each term can be correctly utilized. Can’t indicates an impossibility whereas won’t indicates a lack of willingness.

The Moral "Problem":

One nagging problem for the can’t / won’t distinction is the mistaken thought that a relation exists between morality/ethics and possibility. Some individuals, for example, would argue that a Christian can’t eat shrimp, because of Leviticus 11: 9 – 12. The attempt is to smuggle ethical or moral considerations into one’s conception of possibility. The argument goes like this: Even if a Christian could perform the physical actions require to consume shrimp, the belief in Leviticus would render this act to be impossible.

Which, you know, is moronic.

The answer to this problem is to ask why shrimp consumption is impossible under the Christian schema. When the Christian replies, “It is impossible because the Bible says ‘thall shall not’.” one can calmly remind the Christian that “shall” is a version of “should” and Should Is A Funny Word. The Bible’s shall does not undermine one’s ability to consume shrimp but rather it elicits an emotive response that causes an unwillingness to consume shrimp. This lack of consumption is based on an emotive response and so it falls under the purview of won’t. Remember our translations:

“I can’t X.” = “It is impossible for me to X.”
“I won’t X.” = “I am unwilling to X.”

If a person insists that their ethical or moral code creates an impossibility, rather than an unwillingness, then you may calmly reply: “So, your ethical / moral code is like having a hysterectomy, only instead of your uterus being removed, your physical ability to chew and swallow shrimp has been removed?”

If they affirm that claim, then we walk away. Slowly. Without turning our backs on them. Because they are fucking crazy people.

I think it helpful to clearly understand the meanings of the words we use, and understand the impact our linguistic utterances have on our understanding of reality. If an individual continually says “I can’t X” then that person is reinforcing the notion that X is an impossibility. But if we assess X, determine that it is not impossible, and begin to say “I won’t X” instead, then we can begin to deal with one’s actual relation to X, rather than one’s confused and mistaken understanding of the situation.

The only problem lies in discerning possibility. But that is for another rant.

Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword - Zelda in the Sky

2011-11-22T17:13:00.006-05:00

I’m playing Skyward Sword at the moment, and while I haven't finished it yet, what I really want to talk about is the Zelda series.

I fear that the series, as with many others, uses each iteration to make strictly mechanical changes of the sort where the locations and setting are different, the player gets to try new or modified abilities, the game is in 3D instead of 2D, etc. I expect this is so because of the emphasis on fun, which probably requires a certain level of novelty and variety to really work. If it were enough to just keep giving you the same swords and bows every time without also throwing in double hookshots and remote controlled bugs, then it would make better financial sense to just replay an old Zelda game instead of buying the new one.

The problem is that a large part of what differentiates one Zelda from the next really just boils down to what tools he’s using to solve dungeons and kill bosses. Sure, there is always at least a barebones story to justify taking Link around the world, but that story is largely the same every time. I don’t know that I’d necessarily care about that if, as with Mario, the fundamental story was kept at a superficial or silly level.

After Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, though, it sure looked like Nintendo was wanting to tell a story with a little more weight. I reckon that was about the time when they started to build a mythology around Hyrule, they began to flesh out Ganon as a character and experimented with who Link and Zelda really are. Yet as cinematic as those games are, and as relatively complex as the characters may be, I’m not convinced that Nintendo has ever felt the need to go any farther towards doing something truly good with what they have. The mid-to-late ‘90s Zelda is apparently as deep as the mythology is prepared go, while the toolset Link uses goes ever deeper.

That isn’t to say that the story in each game is interchangeable, nor that I have ignored or disliked the tweaks Nintendo is making to the relationships between characters and the particulars of the plot here and there as time goes on. But I think that’s just another way of making mechanical changes in the same way that adding a new tool is mechanical. It keeps things fresh and fun, sure, otherwise there really would be no reason not to just replay the old games, but I can’t help but wish that they could find a way to elevate the series from a franchise based on amusement and finally reach some kind of payoff for the narrative groundwork they started laying two decades ago.

As it stands, they've got a reasonable adventure outline, a villain who is often sympathetic, and a heroine who has shown herself capable of participating in the adventure. Link is still a bit intangible as a hero, but they could give him a personality easily enough, I should think. Wind Waker surprised me with its emotional punch, though I wouldn't say the series consistently does that right. On the whole, I think the stories are competent and well-crafted, they're just missing a narrative that brings all of these things together in a way that communicates something more meaningful than "be a good person and not a bad person".

Actually, I would settle for a Zelda game that uses that same message, but does so with some subtlety. I have to admit that I don't yet mind hearing the same kinds of stories endlessly so long as I have to do a little work to interpret them. It's great that Nintendo is working hard to keep making Zelda fun, I just wish they would put forth a little effort to make it interesting as well. What I really want is a Zelda game where thinking about the story is rewarding, perhaps even more so than thinking about playing the game.

Chuck Norris is a Hunter

2011-11-20T21:28:00.000-05:00

WoW's 7th Anniversary

2011-11-20T16:42:00.002-05:00

WoW turns 7 on November 23, 2011. If you log in between November 20th and December 3rd, you can get an achievement and a little novelty item.

I think Kyle is the only one of you who still has an active account. So, yeah, log in for your achieve!

Rick Perry [chat]

2011-11-19T23:59:00.001-05:00

"Oops"

This is how we SHOULD talk about arguing.

2011-11-15T15:02:00.003-05:00

In terms of tactics and outcomes, I mean. Not to denigrate talking about arguing in terms of volumes and pointing vehemences (measured in magnitudes of Evil Monkeys. That's valid too, in quantifying arguments. So we can get Unified Growl Theorems and such.

But.. We needs more Post-Game Analysis too.

How are Cain, Perry, Romney, and Bachman ahead of this guy?

2011-11-13T21:40:00.007-05:00

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Jon Huntsman

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

Video Archive

Psych stole this joke.

2011-11-13T17:43:00.002-05:00

Where have I seen this joke before...

Truer words were never spoken.

[chat] On

2011-11-12T23:59:00.000-05:00

This is What People Yelling Sounds Like

2011-11-09T21:28:00.004-05:00

The SIU Board of Trustees calling role while protestors chant outside.

And the protestors outside:

Because 'The Man' ain't gonna fight himself.

WoW: The Great Item Squish

2011-11-07T01:37:00.004-05:00

MMO-champion has a blue post on the homepage addressing problem that has been lurking in the background of WoW since the first expansion: For how long will stat / damage numbers continue to increase? It's an interesting problem, and I wonder what others think about the situation and how they would solve it. Blizzard offers two solutions:

1) Mega Damage: Damage and stats would continue to increase at exponential levels, but instead of a fireball doing 6,000,000 damage, it would do 6 MEGA DAMAGE.

2) Item Level Squish: Reduce all stats in the game (characters, mobs, bosses, gear) to more manageable levels.

1 seems like a silly solution. Why not just display the 6,000,000 damage number if a character does 6,000,000 damage? 2 seems sensible, but creates a problematic aesthetic for the gameworld. We already have the problem of greens replacing purples every expansion. Now we'd have another reversion of progress by lowering the numbers every few expansions. Right now with all of my stats I have, say, +7,000 to spell damage. It seems weird that a new expansion, offering progress and increase to my character, would also revert my numbers to put me at +700 or +70 spell damage.

The number reversion solution also creates an interesting compression problem at the lower end of the game. If the lowest level mobs in starting zones have, say, 50 health do we compress them down to 5, to keep them in scale with the high-end boss health decrease? If so, wouldn't this create a problem after two or three world-wide stat compressions?

Something to think / talk about if it interests you: If you created a game that utilized stat increase as a game mechanic, then how would you deal with the exponential increase in stats over time?

Remember, Remember the [chat] of November

2011-11-05T23:59:00.000-04:00

Andy Rooney Off

2011-11-05T13:21:00.002-04:00

"I think its arbitrary."

You Can't Always [chat] What You Want.

2011-10-29T23:59:00.000-04:00

But if you try sometimes
You might find
You [chat] what you need.

BabyMetal

2011-10-29T22:07:00.001-04:00

Some one explain? Please?

The Ballad of Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-24T18:09:00.002-04:00

Growing somewhat tired of continual arguments with the Occupy Wall Street folk. So, here's a way to summarize my position / critique: How is this not song not an exact instantiation of the Occupy Wall Street fuckhole's position?

Old Version

All we gotta do is
All we gotta do is
All we gotta do is...

Fucking faggoty hippy fucks.

Single Malt Platinum Boobs and Billiards [chat]

2011-10-22T23:59:00.001-04:00

"Encarta it."

Diablo 3: Black Soulstone Trailer

2011-10-21T18:14:00.002-04:00

Now that is a fucking game trailer.

With no fucking panadas.

Diablo 3 Collector's Edition

2011-10-21T18:06:00.000-04:00

Yes, please.

World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria Trailer

2011-10-21T17:57:00.002-04:00

Old Fashioned [chat]

2011-10-15T23:59:00.000-04:00

The key is to not drown it.

German Guy: Shooting Fish in a Barrel

2011-10-11T16:07:00.001-04:00

"Where do I get a barrel, it's...this is...this is 2011, now..."

The Avengers: Awesome Awesome Awesome

2011-10-11T14:03:00.003-04:00

"Take that away, what are you?"

Yes to this.

Race for J and MA 17

2011-10-10T14:34:00.002-04:00

Who'll Buy It First?

50/50 [chat]

2011-10-08T23:59:00.000-04:00

Did anyone see this over the weekend?

Lady GaGa to front Queen?

2011-10-07T00:43:00.000-04:00

Brian May wants Lady GaGa to front Queen

Discuss.

Old Holmes

2011-10-07T00:42:00.001-04:00

R.I.P. Steve Jobs

2011-10-06T02:34:00.006-04:00

Steve Jobs, Apple's Co-Founder, is dead at 56. The world has lost an icon, a visionary, a giant. A man whose foresight, technological know-how, and creativity gave us...

A one button mouse.

Because in a world full of mice with two buttons, Steve Jobs had the wisdom to ask, "Wait, what if we offered consumers a less intuitive, less useful, less convenient interface?"

And his vision became the mantra for an entire brand of computers, aimed at idiosyncratic dipshits who were too fucking retarded to make basic modifications to their registry.

Tis a shame that he died before introducing the no-button mouse.

Edit:

Seth MacFarlane / Jon Stewart Strike Call

2011-10-05T01:32:00.002-04:00

Whatever side you come down on, I think we can all agree on this: Piers Morgan is a douchey little tool.

Source

31 Days of Weird Al

2011-10-04T08:44:00.002-04:00

On facebook and Niffty Stuff I am working on a series of posts about Weird Al Yankovic, Each day this month I am writing short post about a video.

Yeserday was Day 3: Eat It

Arrested Development: New Episodes & Movie

2011-10-02T23:36:00.002-04:00

The cult classic television comedy about the travails of the rich, zany Bluth family, cancelled in 2006 after three seasons, will produce nine to ten new episodes and a movie, it was announced at The New Yorker Festival on Sunday.

Source

Hairy [chat]y Ants

2011-10-01T23:59:00.001-04:00

I, for one, welcome our new ant overlords. May their antisocial circle-running usher in a new era of pain and suffering for the hu-mans. All hail the ant!

Louie: Duckling

2011-09-28T00:06:00.002-04:00

You owe it to yourself to spend an hour watching this episode of Louie. And if you don't get it afterwards, then you need to read the A.V. Club Review to understand what you missed.

A low-budget comedy show on FX really doesn't deserve to be this good, or tackle these sorts of issues. But Louie continually meanders its way to heartfelt emotional truths via dick jokes, silliness, and in this case, ducklings.

Gender-X: Problem, not Progress

2011-09-27T04:06:00.006-04:00

It's apparently gender week here on EOIAS. Yesterday I started things off with a rant about the problems of Ablowing Chaz Bono. Today I continue my tradition of not providing positive cases with a rant about Australian Passports.

Two weeks ago I read an article about the addition of Gender-X as a category to Australian Passports. Now that I’ve stewed the concept for a while, I present my reflections to you, my six quazi-loyal readers.

Australian passports will now have three gender options — male, female and indeterminate — under new guidelines to remove discrimination against transgender and intersex people, the government said Thursday.
Intersex people, who are biologically not entirely male or female, will be able to list their gender on passports as "X."
Transgender people, whose perception of their own sex is at odds with their biology, will be able to pick whether they are male or female if their choice is supported by a doctor's statement. Transgender people cannot pick "X."

Hurrah! A change to our long-entrenched conception of gender! We have tossed aside the shackles of cultural norms and embraced a brighter, better tomorrow wherein everyone is respected and recognized for who they are. Finally those whose life experience renders problematic our binary categorization shall find a new hope for recognition, a new possibility for normalcy, by marking, effectively, “other” as their gender.

Wait a minute. Male…Female…Other… Why, that almost seems as if it’s compounding the problem, rather than solving it.

“But wait,” you gasp, “you suggest that this change is problematic? This is change! We love change! We can believe in change!” Yes, yes, I know that you love change, gentle lambs. But gather, if you will, around aunt/uncle _J_ as (s)he explains how a half-assed, kneejerk reaction by unthinking, uncritical bureaucrats might actually be an instantiation of dumb that retards progress, rather than an instance of amelioration. Let’s start with the three main problems.

Problem #1: Gender != Sex.
Note that Gender-X is a new gender option that provides persons who are biologically intersexed or transgendered with a new means of self-identification. See what they did there? They collapsed sex and gender into one category. But this is problematic, cause it’s incorrect.

The term “sex” refers to biological states. Sex-male or Sex-female is determined by sexual organs, chromosomes, hormones, or various other biological features. One may objectively discern another’s sex by inspecting biological traits, in a sense, in most cases.

The term “gender’ refers to culturally constructed general ideas, such as notions of masculine or feminine, which serve as categories into which various traits are placed. These categories are usually posited onto children, but then become a means of self-identification in the construction of one’s self-narrative.

Gender-X problematically collapses these two drastically different notions into one category. Imagine an individual who identifies as gender-male and sex-intersex, either because they were born with a vagina and seek an upgrade, or were born with a unique genital arrangement, or something along those lines. Given the passport options, suppose that they chose “male” as their gender, since they are gender-male. Well, this does not account for their intersexuality. Alright, so suppose they select Gender-X, given their intersexuality. But now they have violated their own sense of self, since they are gender-male.

Holy shit, we’ve a problem.

Problem #2: Requires a doctor’s statement.
According to the article, a transgender person requires a doctor’s note to justify their selection on the passport form. If gender is actually a personal choice, or personal feeling, or something along those lines, between culturally constructed categories, then why is a doctor required to justify, or lend credibility to, a transgender person’s selection? If I’ve a vagina, but identify as gender-male, why do I need a doctor’s note to select “male” on the form? This seems to place an undo burden onto transgender people.

Additionally, by treating transgender as something for which a doctor’s note is required, a relation has been made between transgenderism and the medial profession. This relationship leads to the notion that transgenderism is medical, is a disease, is an illness, is somehow at all the purview of a medical professional. And it probably isn’t that sort of thing.

Finally, in the paragraph discussing the need for a doctor’s note, we find this statement: “people whose perception of their own sex is at odds with their biology”. See what they did there?

Problem #3: Gender-X reinforces difference and non-compliance.

'X' is really quite important because there are people who are indeed genetically ambiguous and were probably arbitrarily assigned as one sex or the other at birth," Pratt said. "It's a really important recognition of people's human rights that if they choose to have their sex as 'indeterminate,' that they can."

When we add to male and female a third option of X, that option, as a nameless, featureless X, reinforces the sense of difference, non-compliance, and non-belonging. It maintains the standard of normalcy at male and female, and dumps everyone else into the bland, ambiguous realm of X-ness. Instead of engaging the nuances of gender and sexuality, the X bundles together everything that is else. It is akin to a form that states:

Pick your Race: [ ] White [ ] Black [ ] Other

It’s essentially enforcing the sense that there are some who belong, those whose boxes are definite, and some who do not belong, those who exist outside the standard bifurcation. While male and female articulate what a thing is, in most cases, Gender-X simply states that the entity in question has no is-ness, or has a really complicated is-ness with which we can’t be bothered.

Those, I think, are the three main problems.

The mistake in treating this as an instance of amelioration is that Gender-X does not actually improve the situation; Gender-X does not make things better. It collapses sex and gender into one thing, which further confuses the issues. It invokes the medical profession, casting this all within an unhelpful, fallacious context. The category, itself, is a vague, non-descript proclamation of elseness rather than a nuanced articulation of the particular, unique aspects of the individual for whom the passport serves as identification. All they have done is allow people who do not fit into the traditional, binary categories to proclaim that they do not fit, provided that they have a doctor’s note, and do not mind that “Gender-X” may not at all apply to their unique situation.

You might count the recognition of the problem as progress; at least the issues of intersexuality and transgenderism are being recognized. Unfortunately, this is not actual, genuine recognition. Gender-X does not belie a nuanced, caring understanding of the plight of many people or take seriously their self-narratives. It deals with the problems by dumping those problems into a hollow new category. It provides a non-solution, which may be its most grievous and hazardous aspect.

The addition of Gender-X purports to deal with the issue; it kind of stands in the place of a solution: We don’t need to deal with transgenderism or intersexuality any more, because we added a third box. Chaz Bono has a third box, if Chaz Bono wants it, and so now Chaz Bono ought to quit bitching. Gender-X is to transgenderism and intersexuality what 40 acres and a mule was to slavery. Yes, we captured you, broke your spirit, treated you as property, and forced you to do our manual labor, but here’s a mule and some infertile land. We square? Well why aren’t we square? We gave you a fucking mule / non-descript gender category! God, there’s just no pleasing you people, is there?

Problem.

Gender-X is what happens when we do not take seriously the real issues, the genuine problems, in our conceptions of sex and gender. We recognize that these reified binary categories of traits are problematic. We solve this problem of reified categorization by…reifying a new, third category.

My, aren’t we clever.

This all, of course, leaves aside the question which ought to have been nagging at you throughout this whole rant: Why the piss-fucking-hell do we need gender on a passport in the first place?

Ablowing Chaz Bono

2011-09-26T02:33:00.003-04:00

Sex and Gender arguments are good for the same reason that abortion arguments are good: People really, really care about these issues. And, usually, that care translates into an impenetrable veil of emotion that clouds any semblance of reason. So, while the arguments descend into nonsense quite quickly, it is a passionate, visceral, argumentative nonsense with raised voices and finger pointing.

You know, fun.

So, when “Dr.” Keith Ablow starts discussing Chaz Bono’s inclusion on Dancing with the Stars, we know we’re in for good times.

Now, I should say that I am not entirely opposed to Ablow’s “position”. You see, as an individual with a faculty of reason, I can discern some problems with the notion of transgendered persons: they do not play nicely with our binary categories. Transgender invites ambiguity and subjectivism / relativism into our clean division between male and female. We’ve had these categories for quite some time, most languages contain the division, and a vast majority of persons fit neatly into one or the other. With that recognition, I can agree, to a point, with Ablow when he says shit like this:

It is a toxic and unnecessary byproduct of the tragic celebration of transgender surgery that millions of young people who do watch "Dancing with the Stars" will have to ponder this question: Maybe my problems really stem from the fact that I'm a girl inside a boy's body (or a boy inside a girl's body). Maybe I'm not a tomboy; I'm just a boy!

Yes, inviting that possibility is potentially hazardous; allowing unformed, uncritical minds to ponder the option that they can craft a self-narrative contrary to the norm invites a problem into our organized, ordered society. Little tammy was born with a vagina and has a Barbie Playhouse, but maybe she really wants a weiner-dong and some G.I. Joes. Providing children with the option means that some might take it, and that can be argued to be problematic, if only because an increase in gender ambiguity might eventually require that businesses provide more bathroom options than two.

Additionally, disolving cultural norms usually dissolves culture. Or, at least, particular aspects of culture. While some changes are beneficial, it is usually good to ponder the consequences of significantly retooling the organizational structures by which human beings self-govern. For example, do you really want to wait until your child is thirty to ask it what gender it feels like, and so name it accordingly? I mean, we can’t name every child “Pat”. But if we take seriously the notion that gender is a self-narrative, that every person gets to decide who they are, then we’ll probably have to rethink how naming works.

That is a trivial example, but it does show one possible consequence of dissolving our gender categories. When we invite ambiguity, we’ve invited ambiguity, and ambiguity destroys binary categorization, which is a fairly significant feature of reason; it’s kind of how we think.

So, in that respect, I can go along with Ablow: Letting an eight year old decide what gender it wants to be is probably not the best idea. Unless, of course, you are comfortable with your child’s gender being “Batman”.

But here’s where I part ways with Ablow:

We really don't know how these behaviors influence people when they are mainstreamed and celebrated. But I would say during the very vulnerable times when kids are forming their identities, as well as their sexual identities, yes, it's possible that if someone is celebrated and lifted to heroic proportions like that of a civil rights leader that someone who is somewhat uncomfortable with his or her gender might say, "You know what? I'm going down that road." And that is a very tortuous road that we know very little about. And it's still the subject of tremendous debate.

Here’s the problem: “someone who is somewhat uncomfortable with his or her gender”. Ablow recognizes the reality of the situation, that there exist people who are uncomfortable with the gender they have been assigned, and he blows right past it. Ablow has moved from, “Chaz Bono might cause children to self-describe as Batman” to “Chaz Bono may help someone.” That’s no longer invoking a genuine, rational discernment of a problem; that’s just being an asshole.

If persons actually do feel uncomfortable with their gender, and they genuinely struggle with self-description within our cultural binary categories, then we need to be sensitive to that. And if Chaz Bono can invite a conversation between parents a children about gender, about sex, about self-identification? How can that possibly be detrimental to the structure of society? How is that conversation, in itself, problematic?

Sex and Gender are very, very complicated issues. For most people, living within a fixed social category shall never be a problem. But for others, who struggle with self-identity and genuinely suffer in the attempt to feel normal, why not offer role models, offer conversations, offer an ounce of care? The conversation is difficult, but that does not mean that we should refuse to have it.

Because in addition to reason, human beings have empathy; we care about how other people feel. And that, unlike gender, is probably not an evolutionary mistake.

A.J. Ayer on "They're only Playing with Words"

2011-09-25T22:22:00.002-04:00

7:25 – Bryan Magee:
It leads philosophers into a situation where, as soon as anyone makes an assertion of any kind about that world, what you then do is examine the assertion. And you get straight-away into the examination of statements, the analysis of propositions, an analysis of the relation of the terms of the propositions to each other, it’s logical form, so on and so forth. And philosophy soon, can soon seem to become, on that basis, about language. And, indeed, it would be true to say, wouldn’t it, that a lot of non-philosophers have acquired the view that philosophers are only concerned with language, and sometimes this is put, disparagingly, that “they’re only playing with words.” Can you give some explanation of why that sort of prejudice against philosophy, which is very widespread, is misplaced?

8:08 A.J. Ayer:
Well, a great deal of philosophy certainly is about language insofar as it distinguishes between, um, different, uh, types of utterance and analyzes certain types of expression. I think the main, I mean I would make no apology for this, but beyond that I think the answer I would give is that the distinction between being about language and being about the world isn’t all that sharp. Because the world is the world as we describe it. The world is the world as it figures in our system of concepts. And in exploring our system of concepts you are at the same time exploring the world.

Let’s take an example. Suppose now one is interested in the question of causality. Now, uh, we certainly believe that causality is something that happens in the world…I...I...am bitten by an anopheles mosquito, I get malaria, and so on; one thing causes another. And one could put it by saying: What is causality? And, uh, this is perfectly respectable, important, traditional philosophical question. You can also put it by saying: How do you analyze causal statements? What do we mean by saying that one thing causes another? And, in fact, although you look as though you’re posing a purely linguistic question, you’re answering exactly the same questions philosophers have always posed, only putting it in a different form. And we think, or most contemporary philosophy, a rather clearer form.

Somewhere [chat] There

2011-09-24T23:59:00.000-04:00

Too soon, Cooper!

Diablo 3: "Ready" in early 2012

2011-09-23T14:30:00.004-04:00

Diablo 3 shall not be released in 2011:

With every game we make, the temptation is always very strong to launch as soon as possible. However, we didn't put so many years of work into Diablo III to release a game that was almost ready. The beta test is going very well, and we look forward to making the most of the extra time we're taking to deliver an experience that lives up to our vision for the game and the expectations of our players.

Here's the thing: Diablo 3 will never be "ready", where by "ready" we mean "complete". Soon after release, Diablo 3 will be patched, modified, changed, fixed, enhanced. Soon after that first patch, there will be another patch. The game will be continually changed over time.

I mean, for fuck's sake. Diablo 2 was released in 2000. Diablo 2 was last patched on Marched 23, 2010. Diablo 2 has been patched for ten years; it was released when it was "ready" and was continually re-readied and re-completed for TEN FUCKING YEARS!

I can understand delaying a release in, say, 1993, when patches were considered to be a huge hinderance and evidence of a flaw in the game. But it's twenty-fuck-eleven, and we all know how game development works. A product is created, sold, and then patched over time.

So, why can't we have what is considered to be the Beta, released as a game, which is then patched by whatever dumbass tweaks Blizzard intends to make over the next few months?

If Blizzard intends to never patch Diablo 3, to release the game as one perfect, complete whole? Then I can understand delaying the release. But since that isn't their plan, and the fucker shall be patched for years, why the fuck bother delaying it?

As far as I can tell, this is just Blizzard saying, "We want to market it some more." And that's fine, but I wish they'd say that. Though, they've been marketing it since June 28,2008, and you would think three years would be enough.

Bramblecrush: Crushin Brambles

2011-09-19T04:08:00.001-04:00

Think about it for a minute.

Data is a toaster

2011-09-19T03:38:00.002-04:00

1:22 - "Data is a toaster!"

I had no idea this existed. For a couple years now whenever people talked about artificial intelligence or robots or whatnot I reduced them down to toasters. And apparently there is precident for that reduction in Star Trek.

Netflix : Streaming :: Qwikster : DVDs

2011-09-19T01:57:00.002-04:00

Summary: Providing both DVD and streaming options was really, really complicated for these two guys. So, they decided to divide the services into two different things, to make their lives easier.

Now, you might be wondering if this division is in any way beneficial to consumers.

And to that they say, "Fuck you."

[Chat] of Reducibility

2011-09-17T23:59:00.000-04:00

We need a new [chat], I am reading about the axiom of reducibility, hence our new [chat] topic:

Thus a predicative function of an individual is a first-order function; and for higher types of arguments, predicative functions take the place that first-order functions take in respect of individuals. We assume then, that every function is equivalent, for all its values, to some predicative function of the same argument. This assumption seems to be the essence of the usual assumption of classes [modern sets] . . . we will call this assumption the axiom of classes, or the axiom of reducibility.

It's just that simple.

Community - Anthropology Rap

2011-09-16T08:39:00.001-04:00

Betty White had never heard this song until about an hour before they recorded this scene. She got it in two takes.

Rebuild of Evangelion: Sound Impact

2011-09-15T02:46:00.003-04:00

Kotaku has a post about a new Evangelion game. It seems to be a sound game...but after watching the video I have no idea what the fuck is happening.

Here's the trailer for the game:

Can someone who speaks moonspeak translate it, please?

It seems to be clips of the series as backdrops to...i guess circles and lines that indicate a need to click...and maybe points are involved. It seems like another installment in the tradition of the Evangelion Pachinko game theme: Evangelion Games that have nothing to do with piloting mechs or being suicidal teens who masturbate over topless co-workers.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. In fact, I'm brewing a rant about the virtue of Eva games that are not about those themes.

Even if you don't give a shit about Evangelion, which indicates that you have no soul, the comments on the Kotaku post are worth a read. It starts with an instantiation of the rare and elusive "this series is stupid because it contains clichés and I am completely oblivious to the fact that those clichés only exist because this series invented them" post. Those conversations are always fun.

Jeff/Annie Shipper Video

2011-09-14T21:54:00.002-04:00

This is the video that inspired to Shipper segment in the clip show episode of Community.

09/13/01: Remembering the Day We Forgot the Lessons of the Day We Had Sworn We Would Always Remember

2011-09-13T02:11:00.003-04:00

I cannot embed the video from gawker, so you need to follow this link to watch the promo for:

09/13/01: Remembering the Day We Forgot the Lessons of the Day We Had Sworn We Would Always Remember

It is delicious.

Downy Unstoppables: A Rainbow Up Your Nose

2011-09-12T18:21:00.003-04:00

Couple things.

First, the guy asks "who is she?" and crazy-bitch-in-a-dress replies "New Downy Unstoppables". Does this mean that crazy-bitch-in-a-dress is New Downy Unstoppables? If so, why is she holding the container in which she resides? Or is this like a beer commercial, in which utilization of a product results in the appearance of women? Given the structure of the question and response, we have to conclude that crazy-bitch-in-a-dress is New Downy Unstoppables.

Second, crazy-bitch-in-a-dress proclaims that she is "here to shake up your fresh." Yet she then proceeds to shake the container of Downy Unstoppables. Are the Downy Unstoppables "your fresh", if so, how is "your fresh" in that container? Also if so, if she is Downy Unstoppables, and "your fresh", which she shakes, is Downy Unstoppables, then would she not need to shake herself? Or is she simply proclaiming that Downy Unstoppables shakes one’s fresh, and she then provides a sample of shaking via her shaking of an unrelated thing?

Third, "like a cheerleader on espresso." Is this a comment on energy and exuberance? Espresso has less caffeine than coffee, and many other beverages. Cheerleaders offer a fake, staged energy. Is New Downy Unstoppables a genuinely energetic cleaning aid, or a staged cleaning aid intent on getting knocked up after binging on wine coolers?

Fourth, "Toss these little scent-boosters in before you wash!" Ok, now I'm really confused. I thought the product was crazy-bitch-in-a-dress, Downy Unstoppables. But now we are told that the container, which was previously shaken, actually contains scent-boosters. Are scent-boosters different from Downy Unstoppables, or crazy-bitch-in-a-dress? Or are "Downy Unstoppables" the scent-boosters, the crazy-bitch-in-a-dress? What, exactly, is the product and what is the referent for Downy Unstoppables? Am I to purchase the bitch, the scent boosters, or Downy Unstoppables?

Fifth, "The fresh scent will last until you're ready to wash again." How do they know the time schedule upon which I wash my clothing? Is this a guarantee of freshness until anyone would be ready to wash again, or, rather, is this a statement that upon the removal of the fresh scent, one will wash again? The latter seems to be an empty statement: "Smells fresh until it no longer smells fresh, thus prompting a rewashing." Any product, presumably, meets that criteria! So, to be a novel idea, it must be the case that the use of Downy Unstoppables results in a fresh scent until such a time as "you're ready to wash again." But what if I only want to wash my clothing once, ever? Is this everlasting freshness?

Sixth, "ooo!" Did crazy-bitch-in-a-dress, Downy Unstoppables, just get off by sitting on the washing machine? Is this to say that Downy Unstoppables offers an orgasm of freshness?

Seventh, "And this fresh scent will last?" Note that crazy-bitch-in-a-dress, Downy Unstoppables, does not answer the question. Instead, she states, "It's like you shoved a rainbow up your nose," which, I thought, was a tagline already reserved for cocaine.

Eighth, "I should go." But, wait! Our clothing was just washed, resulting in a fresh scent, and yet after this one smell crazy-bitch-in-a-dress, Downy Unstoppables, "should go"? Does that mean that the scent, too, must go? Or does this indicate that Downy Unstoppables leaves after washing, yet the scent remains?

Ninth, "New Downy Unstoppables; the fresh!" Wait wait wait. First we were told that crazy-bitch-in-a-dress is Downy Unstoppables. Then we were told that the little scent boosters are Downy Unstoppables. And now we are told that Downy Unstoppables is "the fresh"? What is this, "the fresh"? And is "the fresh" some third thing, or the same as the little scent boosters, and crazy-bitch-in-a-dress? How can one product be a crazy-bitch-in-a-dress, scent boosters, and "the fresh"? Is there no freshness without Downy Unstoppables, or is Downy Unstoppables one form of the fresh?

Tenth, "Too feisty to quit." I'm not sure that I want feisty anywhere near my clothing. Additionally, how can fresh be feisty? If Downy Unstoppables is too feisty to quit, then why were we previously told that "the fresh scent will last until you're ready to wash again." As this statement implies a termination of the fresh scent, how can the product then be proclaimed to be "too feisty to quit" since it, obviously, quits?

Eleventh, I just recognized crazy-bitch-in-a-dress. Oh…god…Amy Sedaris is Downy Unstoppables? Amy Sedaris is The Fresh?!?!

The Commander [chat]s Aloud - Long Winters

2011-09-10T11:59:00.002-04:00

"The crew compartment's breaking up"

Diablo 3 Beta Client Leak

2011-09-07T15:29:00.002-04:00

The beta client for Diablo 3 was leaked over the weekend. Diablofans.com has a post of the datamined information, including installation screenshots, player titles, runestone effects, sound files, storyline, etc. The most interesting information, though, is this:

The beta client expires on 12/5/11, which seems to suggest a release date.

Jonathon Coulton - Glasses

2011-09-07T10:13:00.002-04:00

Pretty Great.

Louie: Louis CK and Dane Cook

2011-09-04T03:05:00.005-04:00

It's really quite amazing that this happened.

The backstory, if you care to know, is that a few years ago Dane Cook was accused of stealing jokes from Louis C.K. You can visit youtube to find clips of the specific jokes. While the jokes cover admittedly non-unique situations, the sentiment is that Cook stole them. This is the reasoning for the claim:

1) Dane Cook is not funny.
2) Joke X, spoken by Dane Cook, was funny.
3) Joke X is similar to Joke Y.
4) Joke Y was spoken by Louis CK prior to its being spoken by Dane Cook.
5) Therefore, Dane Cook stole the joke.

So, that's a thing that happened. People accuse Dane Cook of stealing a joke, and he gets shit on for a few years. Fast forward to this episode, wherein Louis CK has Dane Cook on his show, Louie, to talk about the joke stealing.

Now, in the galactic scheme of things, joke stealing may not matter all that much. But the fact that they took the time to address the issue on television, allowing each side to air their position? That is quite nice.

That being said, in an earlier episode this season (Joan) Joan Rivers guest stars, and she calls Dane Cook an asshole. Since this is all scripted, we've moved from having Joan Rivers call Dane Cook an asshole, to Dane Cook guest starring and speaking his piece on the "controversy".

Given that situation, it seems reasonable to take this all as a PR stunt, insofar as everything done in the entertainment business is a PR stunt. But even if it is a PR stunt, I can appreciate that this episode happened. Dane Cook and Louis CK sat down, cleared the air, and then discussed how envelopes are terrible gift-giving devices for 10 year olds.

Hurt my [chat] brain.

2011-09-03T23:59:00.000-04:00

"Your big words hurt my hick brain."

-Spoken by an undergraduate, to one of my friends.

Prowl Great [chat]

2011-08-27T23:59:00.000-04:00

"You how it is sometimes like Cambodia in 1971 and the government is not just bad just genuinely evil? You know how you want to be the person who does not sell a out a love one, but you are not? This is Prowl Great Cain"