It's always your political opponents engaging in a culture war

The art of modern political discourse is to treat whatever you issue you care about as either the status quo, or what would be considered the status quo if everyone thought about the issue for more than two seconds. Then any and all criticism can be framed as the opponents of the idea as "playing politics". This is true no matter if your ideas are on the left or right, authoritarian or libertarian, populist or contrarian, etc.

In reality, a culture war always has 2 (or more) sides, and each person engaging in it is playing politics. We have a "my side" bias that makes our own proposition seem inherently reasonable and thus beyond reproach. Those who oppose it are then unreasonable by definition, so they are the ones playing politics to us.

This issue came up in Australian politics with our current Prime Minister Scott Morrison using Twitter to announce that those moving citizenship ceremonies away from Australia Day are playing politics, so the Federal government is mandating that they must be held on Australia Day.

How he could think that he's not playing politics is beyond me, except in the context of the rhetorical device used above. It's playing politics in exactly the same way as those councils that moved the date - it's just that he's on the opposite side of the issue.

There are ways to depoliticise the issue. The most obvious would be to stay out of it and leave it as a matter for local politics. They are elected officials, after all, and the ballot box is as an effective tool on the local level as it is on the federal. So if the voters are genuinely concerned about a change in date, they can do something about it.

Another strategy would be to pick an arbitrary date that takes the issue away from its context. This move is more political than staying out of it, but it takes it away from the cultural narratives that the issue is being fought over and this avoids taking a stand on the issue.

But I'd wager Morrison doesn't want to avoid taking a stand. He knows full well what's at stake, and thus is taking a side that will serve him politically. And that should be expected of any politician savvy enough to be elected as leader of his party.

The hills to die on

Thanks to social media, we now know everyone's opinion about virtually everything. And because of social media, the ease at which the right of reply can be exercised means we can nonchalantly stand a stand when needed. Or even just take a stand on whatever issue we feel like.

Politics, in this sense, means we're always on. There's nothing left on earth these days that can't be made political. Even when there's not an explicit link, omission or the identity of the user can turn something political.

The obvious problem with this is that we're often stretched in terms of our knowledge and abilities to make meaningful contributions to the dialogue. So we tend to be dismissive of ideas entirely, either relying on moral judgements, or going after some hidden political allegiance instead. Bad ideas don't get destroyed, but the people espousing bad ideas get shouted down - just like what happens to people espousing good ideas, or seemingly uncontroversial ideas too.

The more I think about it, what stands out for me is just how willing people are to take each of these topics, which they scarcely know anything about, as being worth standing up for. Part of this is the moral content, where it's good to stand up for moral ideals. But I'm sceptical of how far one can stretch their moral beliefs to be able to give resolute defences. I think the way social media plays out is evidence that it can't. We're far too sure of our positions given how little we can explore them in any detail.

To an extent, we all need to choose our battles. Morality makes for the illusion of expertise, which leaves us ill-equipped when encountering rival beliefs. To be able to defend a position adequately requires a deep knowledge of a topic, and we as individuals can only dedicate ourselves to learning a few things in our lifetimes - and even then most of us only will have enough knowledge to speak basically.

Take a non-controversial moral case: racism. Racism is bad, and ought to be opposed - a sentiment all but racists will get behind. Sometimes people accidentally say racist things without realising, and sometimes racist tropes get perpetuated. And many acts of racism are invisible to us, so it makes the problem of eliminating racism all the more difficult.

What most of us are able to do is call out explicit racism, which is fairly easily recognised. But most of us would be at a total loss on how to deal with issues like immigration, where racism may play a role in some people's opinions, but isn't really solved simply by shouting down an opinion as "racist". Indeed, this can backfire as can be seen around the world with populist anti-immigration politicians who are gaining sizeable voting numbers by capitalising on the gap between the anti-immigration sentiment and a coherent debate on the various issues.

(Of course some people are anti-immigration for racist reasons. And some people have implicit racial biases in theirs, even if they aren't explicit. The point isn't to deny that there's a link between racism and anti-immigration sentiment, but that the immigration debate isn't well served by simply pointing at race.)

Most of us aren't immigration experts, nor really know how to manage all the aspects of a society that immigration touches. We aren't experts on running an economy, planning a city, managing resources, etc. We resort to vapid slogans and moral condemnations of our ideological opposition because that's all we know how to do. To dismiss the whole debate as racist (or to see the debate in terms of race) means that the debate is largely irrelevant to the political reality.

Similarly for other issues that race touches on. How many of us could talk efficacy of workplace laws, or of the legality of hate speech, or of methods to deal with differing incarceration rates, de facto segregation in housing and schools, education gaps, inequality of opportunity, healthcare outcomes, etc.? Even if we know the extent of the problems, few of us can say anything meaningful in schools.

If a racist started attacking affirmative action, for example, how many of proponents of affirmative action could defend it in anything other than talking points? Not many, I'm betting, but I've seen the very idea of saying there's that affirmative action may be up for debate dismissed as proving racism on the part of the questioner.

Perhaps part of it is the rise of punditry in the 24 hour news cycle, where expertise has been replaced with opinion, and feeling strongly on a topic counts more than a deep expertise on the topic. When there are so many things in society worth feeling strongly about, how do we adequately defend all of them? The reality is that we can't. What we can do, however:

1. We need to pick our battles. We can't defend everything, so we shouldn't try. More often than not, we look the fools and we don't serve the issues well.
2. We need to give the benefit of the doubt. Not everything is an instance of the thing we care about, and certainly not worth defending to the death.
3. We need to live life beyond politics. Most of what we do with most we do it with most of the time is not political. Making battles worth sacrificing friendships or relationships seems self-destructive to no clear degree. No-one thinks wholly like we do, so conflict is inevitable the more issues we take stands over.
4. We need to learn more. We should know a topic in depth, which should be done in a rigorous nonpartisan way. Learn the science, where the science exists, and read diverging opinions in the field.
5. We need to listen to our opponents. We should be able to state an opponent's case better than they can, including what positives their view has, and be open to their views changing our minds. Only that way can we begin to have a dialogue.

"Culture wars" are lazy politics

As far as the moral norms of both major parties in Australian politics goes, they're both middle of the road. Sure, there's the occasional far right winger in the Liberal Party that rallies against the prevailing norm, but politicians tend to know which way the moral winds are blowing and pander to it. Labor isn't a very progressive party in that respect, much to the chagrin of progressive voters, as they need to keep a broad appeal.

So when our Prime Minister says a vote for Labor is a vote for "extreme gender policies", he's lying. And such a comment works for the very reason you won't see Labor supporting anything resembling an "extreme gender policy" - because Labor needs to keep a broad appeal. It's the same reason why Labor opposed gay marriage when there wasn't much public support, then advocated for it when there was.

Which brings me to my point: this sort of rhetoric really brings down democratic discourse. That instead of debating the issues that tend to divide the left and right, we're instead fixating on a virtually non-existent issue that has little relevance to the direction of the country for the next 3 years.

It's lazy politics because of how easy it is up get people riled up over it despite how little relevance it has. The 8 people who take any mention of gender to mean it's denying their right to exist (it doesn't - no party has an "execution of intersex and transgender people" platform), and the True Believers who think that gender was defined the moment God fashioned a penis from dirt and a vagina from a rib, are going to make noise that exacerbates a non-issue into the public consciousness.

There's plenty of issues separating the major parties; issues that are relevant to the functioning of government and ought to decide the election. There are meaningful differences in funding public education and healthcare, differences in workplace laws and taxation, differences in environmental policy, etc. And even in issues where the major parties don't differ much (immigration, national security, food security, trade, indigenous issues, etc.) there's plenty of issues that ought to be debated publicly. But "culture wars" issues are playing into conspiracy theories on the fringes of politics and pretending they are relevant or a defining point of difference. It's cheap point scoring over nothing.

We are all partisan hacks now

When I was younger, I thought the internet would improve political discourse, as it would take away the stranglehold of the mainstream media. Information wouldn't be filtered through a few agenda-laden voices, but there would be more of a focus on facts.

It's fair to say that I was extremely naive, and spectacularly wrong. Instead, as we all have come to learn, the internet has exacerbated the polemic nature in us and pushed us into even more tribal positions to the point we don't even feel the need to engage in substantive rhetoric.

But the problem is worse than that. We can now see others as mere mouthpieces of certain political rhetoric. In other words, they are biased, and all we need to do is point out how they are biased in order to dismiss them.

I've seen right wingers use the accusation of being left wing against fellow right wingers, and left wingers do the same against left wingers. The accusation is often confusing because those criticisms are often valid, but their use is disappointing because it shows how lazy we've become in our political rhetoric. We don't feel the need to address the substance, but immediately and indiscriminately try to cast the criticisms as extensions of a political identity we don't share.

It doesn't matter why we hold the positions we do. It doesn't matter about the underlying substance. It doesn't even matter where we actually sit on the political spectrum. When we are online, we are avatars of whatever politician / pundit / celebrity and need to be attacked as such.

Let's face it, we don't know nor need to know anything anymore. We don't need to have informed opinions, or be able to think through an issue. What matters is which side of politics closest resembles the view being put forward, and we need to remind ourselves that we are mere puppets of those views with no values or beliefs of our own.

Try putting politics you disagree with in terms of positive values

If you can't articulate a positive account of a given political belief in terms of positive values, you haven't understood that belief.

With the erosion of political discourse online, it's often hard to get away from the partisan rhetoric and inevitable strawmanning. We have our own political narratives for our own beliefs, bolstered by a community of like-minded individuals, yet we are isolating ourselves from other groups who respond to different values and narratives.

The more I saw this rhetoric online, the less I could figure out who it's for. It seems more about fostering in-group solidarity than an attempt to win in a democracy. And in a democracy, persuasion is the path to adoption.

Gross caricatures are not at all persuasive to those who are caricatured, and may only be effective on the neutral if it can capture an actionable value. More specifically, if you don't capture the correct values that are in play, you are showing yourself as an unreliable critic. You are a partisan hack repeating your tribe's talking points instead of offering a penetrating criticism.

Beliefs are rooted in values, and one reason why anyone claiming to be the moral majority or the 99% is greatly overestimating how widespread their particular values are. Yet both the moral majority movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement had values they believed in and believed were worth fighting for. To address either is to address those underlying values, however divergent they are from your own.

If you cannot see the focus on family, on love, on valuing social order, on the important of doing right morally, then the moral majority seems like a bible-thumping persecution-happy hate group. Similarly, if you can't see the commitment to justice, to rooting out corruption and greed, to caring for the basic welfare of people, then OWS seems like a bunch of self-righteous anti-capitalists who know nothing of how the world works demanding a socialist revolution.

People tend to centre their politics around beliefs that matter to them, so trying to demand a political discourse that ignores that is a disaster in a democracy. It's hard to break out of our own narratives and tribal allegiances, but doing so is how political discourse can (at least partly) transcend partisan talking points because it gets to the heart of what matters to a voter. Talking about their moral failings that you perceive in their beliefs is going to be ineffective at best, and often even counterproductive.

Welfare as a stick for conservatives

Money is a necessity in society. It's our agreed upon standard for facilitating most transactions. This fact alone justifies the need for welfare, because without it people cannot function in our society.

Its necessity doesn't mean it's well catered for, however, with crackdowns frequent and even modest increases being politically untenable on either side of politics. I used to think that it was because they're an easy target - a group that can be demonised who have little recourse to fight back - but I think that explanation excludes the basic moral impulses in play. Rather the unfairness of getting something for nothing makes them an easy target.

In short, there is a tension between the necessity of welfare and the perceived unfairness of a welfare state.

People can, if they choose to, live their whole life without needing to work, which requires that others in the society do the so-called heavy lifting. The welfare rhetoric often focuses on abuse of the system for this reason, even if those abuses are rare and end up affecting those who aren't abusing the system.

This is why programs to restrict welfare to the deserving are part of populist politics, irrespective of whether it provides good societal outcomes. Drug testing welfare recipients is one policy that's expensive, counter-productive, yet gets popular support. After all, drugs are illegal, and welfare is meant to look after individuals. Cards that restrict purchases or even food stamps are another. They are the tacit recognition that welfare is necessary but that out shouldn't go beyond that.

The current contention over welfare in Australia currently is that the rate is so low that it's not even performing its necessary function. Again, for conservatives, this is a good thing because it means welfare shouldn't be relied upon, so it should only be used as a last resort. Combine this with the complaint that welfare recipients find ways to get on higher payments (such as disability pensions, which again get repeated crackdowns) or that they are supplementing their income without declaring (see: robodebt) and we've got a punitive system that makes it harder for those on welfare to survive.

Yet all these measures don't address some of the problems associated with unemployment. People in vulnerable jobs can be exploited. Long-term unemployed have weakened job prospects. There can never be full employment, and many who work now are underemployed. No amount of sticks within the welfare system are going to change that.

Instead, what is needed are practical steps to overcoming barriers for entry. There needs to be better support to get people into work, from better training, to employer incentives. These should be driven by practical results.

At the same time, we really need to change how we view welfare from a handout to the ability to participate in society. This would be more in line with the role welfare plays in a society, allowing for economic activity. Money given to welfare tends to go back into the economy, so the money isn't being lost, but encouraging economic engagement.

So when the the rate jobseekers get remains stagnant while the cost of living goes up, the outcome will be pushing more people into deeper poverty. The stick methods may be a deterrent effect for people in crappy jobs not to quit and live off welfare, but it's not going to get many people off welfare without other changes that make it easier to work. The necessary function of welfare needs to be depoliticised because of how easy it is to perceive it as a straightforward unfairness problem.

Happy Labour Day!

It's always good to have a day off work, and public holidays are a great way to enshrine the balance between life and work into law. Labour Day is unique along public holidays in that it celebrates this victory for the rights of workers.

Yet it's another day off.

We don't really celebrate labour day here, not in the sense that we celebrate Anzac Day or Christmas. There's no reminder of what importance the day has, nor what it was like before for workers.

Yet it's another day off.

What was fought for and won by the labour movement is more important than ever at a time when wages are stagnant and working conditions are gradually being eroded in the name of efficiency (i.e. shareholder profits). We have a proven way to give better working conditions and help share the success of the economy among the people.

Unions should be using this as an opportunity to show their relevance, especially at a time when they are only ever in the media when there's corruption or strikes. Without collective bargaining, the forces of supply and demand fix wages. Unskilled or low-skilled work is vulnerable to tougher conditions, lower pay, and exploitation.

Yet it's another day off.

We need more attention given to why it is we have this day off because without that attention there's too much power for those who can gradually erode the gains made by the labour movement. We are seeing the effects of that already, and as technology and globalisation continue to push forward, we will see greater effects.

It's no wonder MAGA was a thing, or Brexit was a thing, or that far-right national parties around the world are taking more and more of the protest vote of vulnerable workers feeling betrayed and marginalised by a political system that seems to serve the wealthy. It's no wonder many young people see communism as a solution despite every implementation of communism being a dismal failure that made workers worse off than a market-driven economy.

Yet it's another day off.

Every company wants to maximise its profits, and that means trying to get the most out of the workers for the least amount of money. The human capital - our wellbeing and our lives above and beyond work - doesn't factor into it. That's our responsibility, and we can only get that as a greater society reflecting on itself.

Labour Day is important because it's a reminder of how everyone can be made better off by collective action, and that we as a society ought to be having the conversation of how we want to live. It's a reminder that conditions can improve and that we aren't fully beholden to the relentless pursuit of profit.

It's another day off, and that's worth celebrating.

Two "Solutions" For The Same Predicament

In the Australian budget released this week, Joe Hockey outlined two measures to try to get groups associated with higher unemployment into work. For those over 50 and unemployed, the government will provide a financial incentive to employers to hire them - up to $10,000 if they remain with the employer for 2 years. For those under 30, however, anyone who is unemployed will face 6 months a year without any benefit, including an initial 6 month waiting period.

The rationale, at least how it seems prima facie is this: When it comes to older workers, the problem is the free market discriminates unfairly. When it comes to younger workers, however, the problem is the youth themselves, who by the implication of the exercise are simply unwilling to do that it takes to have sustained employment.

Both solutions are recognitions of the failures of the current private sector model we have for employment. The idea of seeing unemployment benefits as some sort of entitlement misses the reality of the job market. If everyone who wanted to work was able to get a job by the sheer desire to have a job, we wouldn't need to address the issue. But there are biases, employers discriminate, and these patterns of discrimination can be hugely problematic for those caught up in them. There's a reason that people who become long-term unemployed stay long-term unemployed.

This is a failure of governance, and a perennial failure at that. There's no point in laying the blame on Joe Hockey and the Liberal Party of Australia just because they happen to be the government in charge, but it applied just as much to Wayne Swan and Labor before that, and will apply to whomever comes next. The free market, like any other solution, is a means to an end. We recognise the limits of the free markets by practices such as a social safety net, government incentives, discrimination laws, etc.

I'll say now that I'm very sympathetic to the idea that young people should be in training. I'm also sympathetic to the idea that people should move for work. Yet what policy came with the policy to cut off unemployed youth from social security? And for that matter, what policy is there to help those evicted when they lose their income? Or even to ensure that the youth have stable employment such that they will be able to get housing to begin with?

Framing youth unemployment as an entitlement issue, I think, is a mistake. It's a survival issue - that a group of vulnerable people who are having a hard time entering the workforce to begin with are now being threatened with ruin for circumstances that are largely beyond their control. To say it's politically-charged rhetoric that shirks the responsibility of government would be a dispassionate way of describing the policy.

Whether it's the best of all possible systems, we live in a system where we depend on money. Take that away and you take away the ability to survive. And when it comes to the poor, it's not like the money is disappearing from the system. People who live on the edge tend to redistribute that money back into the economy because they need to spend all their money just to survive.

Over on Crikey, I saw this described as class warfare, but it goes beyond that. Health and education cuts are class warfare, allowing universities to price education away from the poor is class warfare, raising the age one qualifies for Newstart is class warfare, introducing mandatory co-payments for medical access is class warfare, allowing people to salary sacrifice their lifestyle is class warfare. This goes well beyond that - putting people potentially into harm's way for the crime of being young and not being able to find a willing employer.

The Appearance of Legitimacy

Japan have suffered a setback in putting whale meat on the table with their "scientific program" being labelled a ruse by an international court. Of course, the Japanese knew it was a ruse too (their disappointment was expressed in the denial of tradition, not of what they could have learnt from slaughtering whales), yet it was a ruse they needed to keep up for international obligations.

This same kind of legitimacy is presumably what Russia sought with the referendum in Crimea, or any dictator does with a "poll". It's the kind of ruse that fools nobody, yet it's enough to fend off simple criticism. Russia doesn't care about having a fair election any more than a dictator does, yet the burden is now on those who say it's unfair - a burden that really can't be met beyond suspicion.

The example I want to highlight, though, is scientific creationism. What should be said about all creationism is this - any starting point other than the science will exclude it from being science. It's that simple. The goal of science isn't to vindicate any doctrine, religious or otherwise, but to use observation to develop and test theories. Creationists fall afoul of this because they already have the answer.

Yet creationists want scientific legitimacy. While many will affirm that the bible is their starting point, they are also quick to criticise any scientific claim that seemingly contradicts that. They also crave people with qualifications - real qualifications if possible, but degree mills in the absence of those. They even have their own "scientific" journals where people submit "real" research.

What is interesting is exploring what the response to that should be. Science, of course, needs to be an open enterprise and people need to be able to explore avenues wherever they lead. At the same time, scientists need to guard against pseudoscientists who are looking to use the scientific process to serve their own ends.

What we end up with, sad to say, is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The complaint was that Intelligent Design isn't being given a fair go by the scientific community, and proponents are finding that their support of Intelligent Design is meaning losing academic credibility. It sounds appalling, which it would be if it were the case.

There is a perceived circularity with scientific orthodoxy. Intelligent Design, to be a legitimate view, needs to have academic support. But since the evolutionists are the ones in charge of what gets called science, Intelligent Design cannot get the academic support it needs. In other words, the orthodoxy rigs the game by excluding any person or paper that might be sympathetic to ID as simply being anti-science.

Of course if this were really circular, then it would be utterly astounding that science progresses at all. Yet science does, and the ideas accepted by the biological community now are not the same as 50, 100, or 150 years ago when Darwin first published. The big deal is made of the orthodoxy because it's a convenient scape goat standing in the way of perceived scientific legitimacy.

What Expelled did was tie cases of ID proponents being fired or denied tenure to the fact that they were ID proponents. That in turn was tied into the wider narrative of academia trying to exclude God from the picture. What this does is gives a reason for the lack of legitimacy. They are serious scientists doing serious research promoting a serious view, but the atheistic evolutionists stand in their way. (One of the most baffling things about Expelled is how much of the film is about Richard Dawkins' atheism, from theologians discussing it to Ben Stein drilling Dawkins on what gods he doesn't believe in.)

The argument so far has been made without context. If we were to put ID into a cultural and historical context, ID an incarnation of creationism in an attempt to give it scientific legitimacy at least as far as what gets taught to students. ID is aimed at school boards, politicians, and at the wider public. It craves scientific legitimacy not because God should be vindicated in science, but because scientific legitimacy is what counts as far as what is taught in science class. If ID were to limit itself to being an expression of natural theology, there'd be no issue. But as the wedge document confirms, the motives of ID proponents is to ultimately bring people to Jesus.

Thus scientists are put in an awkward position. If people want to use the appearance of scientific legitimacy for their nonscientific ideas, then scientists have to guard against it. But if they do guard against it, they are accused of guarding the orthodoxy against proper scrutiny. Proper science is brought down to the level of pseudoscience by virtue of pseudoscience being able to better posture itself as legitimate science persecuted by the orthodoxy.

The value of real science is that what is the mainstream now had to be earned through the scientific process. Just as a real democracy requires an open political process. The pale imitation of dictatorships fools no-one even though it's an attempt of dictators to appease their critics. The same goes for creationists pretending to do science. They aren't doing so because they want to find the truth - they know their truth already - but because it's what's expected of them.

The problem is that their pale imitation isn't the same thing as doing real science, and real scientists call them out on it. The irony of it all is that scientists standing up for science has become to be seen an expression of ideology, while ideologues craving the appearance of scientific legitimacy as the persecuted minority standing up for Truth.

QFT

"One of the greatest mistakes for those who advocate reform is to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good." - Malcolm Turnbull

Owning The Narrative

I've been loosely following the reports of the Anders Breivik trial. What Breivik did was despicable; there's no justification for murder - let alone in that manner. What did those teenagers do? Yet according to the media, how Breivik justified his action was that of necessity. He saw himself as doing good.

It will come as no surprise that I'm not keen on the idea of living under any form of theocracy, it's an affront to human dignity and to freedom of conscience. I'm very lucky to be living in a country that not only has a strong focus on civil liberties, but will largely still work towards them. That we live in a country where there's a public debate over gay marriage is something to be proud of, not for the fact that homosexuals are still treated as inferior in the eyes of the government, but that we have a society that is focusing on a question like that. So it goes without saying that I'm against any incursion onto society that's going to limit individual rights, and especially rights of minorities. And on that, I am in opposition to fundamentalist Islam.

Yet Breivik doesn't speak for me. In that we might be (barely) bedfellows on opposing fundamentalist Islam, I don't think that Breivik in his words or actions embodied any of the liberal democratic values that are at the core of my opposition. I'm all for multiculturalism, and think it's a measure of a healthy society. And I don't care whether or not someone is a Muslim any more than a Christian or an atheist, provided that belief doesn't by necessity be forced on others.

So again it should be no surprise that I have no love for right-wing nationalist groups or those who wrap themselves in patriotism and try to place a barrier between our culture and others. Yet it's the right-wing nationalists who are trying their best to be the voices of opposition to particular aspects of culture that people should genuinely be afraid of. That people can live in multiple ways and bring different experiences and perspectives on life should be a good thing, there's nothing to fear in someone eating falafel instead of sausage, or being Buddhist instead of Christian. Yet the prejudices that can and do follow need to be vetted in the same introspective light we do our own society.

It shouldn't be those right-wing groups who are the voices of opposition to any fundamentalist Islamic incursion of values, it should be the domain of all those with conscience and a respect for human dignity. That there are problems with immigration policies shouldn't be a matter of being racist or xenophobic, nor conversely that it's hating one's own culture or wishing for a destruction of society. There's got to be some way to have the conversation in reasonable terms, so that unreasonable voices don't dominate it.


Breivik, apparently, is trying to put his views on trial, with desired witnesses including right wing bloggers and Muslim fanatics. And that is what should be a concern, that a man who felt "doing good" involved personally killing 69 people - most of whom were teenagers - and killed 8 more by setting off a bomb, is trying to be the frontlines against the problems that have arisen from Islamic migration in Europe. Some of his concerns are no doubt imagined, overblown, and taking extreme cases as being the norm. But that he's the voice speaking out, like the jingoist political parties, is what should be of real concern. They, by being the voices in opposition, are the ones owning the narrative by which the discussion is framed.

The Great Uterine Conspiracy

Governments need to legislate against birth control options, because they know that if women actually have a choice in the matter, they know that the human race would be doomed to extinction. Because if we can't trick women into having babies through ignorance and lack of intention, then what chance do we have? Women, if given the chance, will lock their uterus down with so much baby-preventing chemicals that the only hope will be funding the construction of mechanical incubators - and do you know how expensive that would be?

If it sounds dumb, think of any given rationale that politicians give.

Gay Marriage

In many of the ethical quandaries of our time, most case involve having to give up something. In the case of animal welfare, for example, those arguing for animal freedom are asking others to give up eating meat and using animal products. In the case of climate change, we are being asked to cut back, or even give up, on certain greenhouse-emitting products and activities.

The case of gay marriage is odd in that respect, as there is really nothing that anyone has to give up. If there is an inequality, it seems quite trivial that it be rectified. Of course, it doesn't really stop reasons to that effect being proposed. The most common one is the institution of marriage itself - that marriage itself is what loses out. Or more precisely, the notion of the family unit.

While it seems irrelevant to the discussion, a lot is made of reproductive capabilities. Marriage, as the argument follows, is an institution to support procreation. Homosexuals since they can't procreate, therefore should have no rights when it comes to marriage. While straight childless couples can still marry, it doesn't matter because the practice is to support the procreation and raising of children.

The problem with this line of argument is that even if that is the reason to have marriage as an institution, in no way is that capacity diminished by gay marriage. Married heterosexual couples still have exactly the same rights as before, only that homosexual couples are able to have the other benefits that stem from marriage.


I tend to think that the problems with gay marriage aren't so much about reproductive rights, but that it would be affording homosexuality equal societal recognition. The real loss, in this case, I suspect is the perception of superiority of a particular kind of relationship. it's a threat to the ego in much the same way as giving women or aboriginals the right to vote, and realistically has as much justification for failing to grant such a right.

Wait... What?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-05/27nazi-philosophy27-behind-ethics-classes3a-nile/2826280

The New South Wales Upper House has begun debating the future of school ethics classes, with Christian Democrats MP Fred Nile comparing them to Nazi philosophy.

Reverend Nile introduced a private member's bill in May to repeal the legislation that allows ethics classes to be offered as an alternative to scripture lessons.

The State Government used its numbers to bring the bill forward for a second reading this morning, but Premier Barry O'Farrell insists it will not be supported by Coalition MPs.

Reverend Nile told the chamber the classes do not teach ethical behaviour.

"[It is] a course which I believe does not teach children right from wrong but promotes the secular, humanist relativist philosophy," he said.

"I believe this is the philosophy that we saw during World War Two with the Nazis and the communists."

"Outrageous," interjected one MP in response.

Reverend Nile says the Premier privately supports his bid, but Mr O'Farrell flatly denied the claim when questioned by the ABC today.

Further debate on the bill has now been adjourned until September.

I'm lost for words here. I was at least expecting something to do with the content being from Nietzsche or Heidegger, but that it's the philosophy of Nazis? There's lots of arguments that could be made against this, from him misrepresenting the content of the ethics classes, to not understanding what secular humanism is, or having a completely distorted view of history, but I think the best approach is just to quote Hitler.

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ...we need believing people. - Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933

It's interesting that Nile has to demonise teaching secular knowledge in order to advance his position, not to evaluate it on its own merits, but to lie about it and tarnish it with the atrocities of history. All this over giving students an alternative to sitting around doing nothing while other students are at scripture.

My Future King?

Today, the second in line to be King of Australia is getting married. My care-factor is the same as the care-factor for the Swedish royal wedding or a celebrity wedding (i.e. none at all), yet this is meant to be my king. It's a really odd thought, but that's the absurdity that is the anachronism of European colonialism in the 21st century. Someone halfway around the world has an official title that effectively means nothing.

Every time I think of the monarchy, that scene from Holy Grail comes to mind:

Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Disaster Insurance

Insurance, in order to remain a viable business, needs to be profitable for insurers in the long run. Someone is paying for any insurance bonus one gets, just like with poker machines that have a set margin of return. If someone wins big, it means that multiple people have lost - and that excludes the margin the poker machine companies take out.

In terms of a disaster fund for Australia, I can't see why insurance is a better option than ensuring enough money is put aside. Perhaps it's for the short-term access to funds, but in the long run I can't see how insurance is a good idea. It seems inevitable that we're going to be paying more than what it would cost just to take care of it ourselves, otherwise who is paying for it?

Morning Scepticism: Politics Of Failure

The political process is so often lamented, that the parties have become complacent and political rhetoric is in the gutter. We blame the media, we blame human nature and those who manipulate it, we blame ideologues and ideologies. This is taken as a failure of democracy and fosters cynicism, but I think another more important lesson can be drawn from it. While there are certain failures that need addressing from time to time, and there's problems with corruption and incompetency, most of the time things run quite smoothly. The debate over gay marriage for example takes place because those fundamental issues are pretty well taken care of. While it might be some form of distraction, in part it's a reflection of the success of a healthy society.

Though it is a bit of a concern just how polemic and divisive such topics can be. Things are running more smoothly than in any time in history, yet we're almost ready to rip out each other's throat over such issues!

Morning Scepticism: Constitution

It perplexes me that Bill O'Reilly would look to a 222 year old document for authority on socio-economic measures. Even neglecting that its no longer 1788 and circumstances have drastically changed, there's over 200 years of intellectual exploration in social and economic theory as well as many different implementations by different countries around the world with varying success. It's like neglecting solar power because the founding fathers did just fine burning wood.

QFT

"It's not like the Tea Partiers hate black people. It's just that they're shockingly willing to believe the appalling horseshit fantasy about how white people in the age of Obama are some kind of oppressed minority. That may not be racism, but it is incredibly, earth-shatteringly stupid." - Matt Taibbi

QFT

"I don't think of the problem as between socialism and capitalism but rather between the suppression of ideas and free ideas." - Richard Feynman