text:
Category Archives: Politics
Posted by Jason on April 29, 2018
The whole "violence in video games" thing made an unexpected comeback recently, I guess because "first as tragedy, then as farce" is some kind of metaphysical law now. Anyway, for all the puffed-up pontificating that pervades this issue, no one's ever really done a proper analysis of it, so, y'know, someone probably should.
Obviously, video games do not "cause" violence for any reasonable definition of the term. The mental hurdles that have to be cleared before a person can make the active decision to arbitrarily murder a bunch of strangers are somewhat extensive. Specifically, "desensitization to violence" has almost nothing to do with it. The reason people mostly don't kill each other isn't because they're scared of seeing blood, it's because they don't want to in the first place. And of course spree killings require a whole other level of motivation on top of that, because in that case you're killing people you don't know in a way that doesn't benefit you at all. Indeed, the entire reason spree killings attract attention is that they don't make sense; most people literally can't imagine how you would actually do something like that.
The typical tendency to latch on to the easiest available explanation is particularly pernicious here, because the fact that we're talking about something very far outside of ordinary experience means that any real explanation would have to be extremely complicated. Remember, spree killings are vanishingly rare (which is part of the reason they attract so much attention when they do happen), so whatever "causes" them can't be common; indeed, it can't even be just one thing. You'd basically have to take a person's entire life experiences into account, at which point you lose the ability to simply point your finger and blame one thing. (So yes, even blaming guns here is not really apropos. Spree killings actually provide an extremely weak case for banning guns. The strong case is the combination of the facts that a) most gun deaths are accidents or suicides, so guns really are the proximate cause there (suicides are generally impulsive, so even though there are other underlying issues there, removing the means can still be a decisive preventative measure) and b) individual gun ownership doesn't have any positive functions.) One can, of course, imagine a situation where some game or other provides the "but for" cause for a particular killing, but everything that would have to happen for a person to get to that point would clearly be the overwhelmingly more significant issue. Basically, if fucking Doom or whatever can convince you to kill people, then literally anything can.
At the same time, it's implausible to argue that games have no effect on anything. I mean, this actually was the popular argument back in the day: that games are a purely escapist pastime that have no effect on anything whatsoever. This is honestly pretty hilarious, because it's precisely the argument for banning games. If games are completely useless, if they don't do anything at all, then you might as well ban them. Nothing of value would be lost. But of course this is nonsense. Games aren't in any way "fake"; they're real things that exist in the real world, and engaging with them necessarily has to have some effect on a person simply by virtue of the fact that they're things. Furthermore, games aren't just arbitrary amalgamations of colors and noises – what they actually are, usually, is feedback loops. You take an action, you get feedback from it, you modify the actions you're taking to account for the feedback and get new feedback in response, and you keep doing this forever. This is the style of interaction that is most likely to have an effect on human behavior; it's the specific thing that the human brain responds to. And we know this is the case because game developers are completely shameless about it. The most prominent current example of this is the "loot box" system, which is explicitly intended to mimic the effects of slot machines for the purpose of manipulating addiction-prone people into dumping tons of money into them. And the reason games like this get made is that they're profitable, meaning this works. In short, there really is something going on here, and beyond vague notions of "addiction," nobody's ever really bother to figure it out.
In order to understand what we're actually talking about here, we first have to understand what "violence in video games" actually is. It's not actual violence, obviously, but it's also not a simulation of violence. People usually talk about it as though that's what going on, that violence is being "portrayed," but it's clearly not, because if it is, it's the worst portrayal ever. Two people holding weapons and clicking on each other until one of their life numbers reaches zero is about as far as you can get from an accurate portrayal of violence. I mean, this is usually a joke, like in Street Fighter or whatever you have two people punching and throwing fireballs at each other and they're perfectly fine and uninjured the entire time until one of their life bars runs out, at which point they suddenly fall over, completely incapacitated. The joke is precisely that this is absolutely nothing like a street fight.
So if that's not it, then what is it? What it is is a metaphor. "Violence in video games" is an aesthetic layer that exists to help us understand the underlying computational phenomena. What's actually happening in a fighting game is that each player has a set of spatial coordinates that they can move around and project other sets of coordinates from, and if one player's projected coordinates intersect with the other's fixed coordinates, then the counter belonging to the intersecting player gets decremented by a certain amount, and the player whose counter reaches zero first loses. The problem is that that sentence makes no sense; if you actually had to explain games to people in this way, nobody would ever be able to figure out what the hell was going on. So what you do is you draw a picture of a street fight, and then people are immediately like "oh, I get it, I'm supposed to punch that guy." This also, just as importantly, provides the player with a motivation for what they're supposed to be doing. We don't just understand "fighting" in mechanical terms, we also understand what you're supposed to do when you get into a fight, which is to win it. So while the metaphor isn't mechanical, it's actually the more important part of the design: it's the thing that the players are actually interacting with pretty much the whole time (in fact, it's probably the thing that the developers were interacting with most of the time, too).
But the thing to note about metaphors is that they're always somewhat arbitrary. The mechanics are the thing that's actually happening, and you can always put a different metaphor on top of them. For example, in a RPG the two sides typically have different "attacks," which are portrayed as things like swords and guns and fireballs, and their counters are portrayed as "life," so the win condition is that one side eventually runs out of "life" and "dies." But you could just as easily present the exact same mechanics as, for example, a debate, where instead of "attacks" you have "arguments," and instead of "life" you have "credibility," and the side that runs out of "credibility" first "loses" the debate. The game would work exactly the same way. So if violence isn't a portrayal, and it's also not a necessary consequence of the mechanics, then this is where we arrive at the real question: why do almost all games use violence as a metaphorical basis when doing so is completely unnecessary? Even in something like a Mario game, which is supposed to be all cute and family-friendly, there are still "enemies" that you have to "defeat," and the climax occurs when you face off against the biggest enemy and boil him alive in a vat of lava. What's really going on here?
The question can be answered in one word: dominance. This is the real underlying dynamic. A game might contain more or less explicit violence, but the thing that you're supposed to do in every case is to "beat" it. This is actually clearer in single-player games: we sometimes talk about playing "against" the "A.I.", but this isn't really what's happening, because the game as an overall system controls your actions as much as it controls your "opponent's." What's actually happening is simply that you're interacting with a computerized rule system. You're not really "beating" anyone or anything when you "win" the game, you're just placing the system into a certain state. But since this is difficult to understand on its own, we explain it to the player by means of ideological content. Everyone knows what it means to "beat the bad guys," so presenting this situation provides an immediately comprehensible entry point into any set of underlying mechanics.
But explanation isn't really the main purpose here. The purpose is motivation. Dominance isn't just understandable, it's morally significant. The purpose of establishing a "defeat the bad guys" scenario is to make the player want to do so, because it's the right thing to do. And it's this aspect that is truly pervasive, far more so than explicit violence. Portal, for example, is notable for being a first-person shooter that doesn't have any violence in it, but it still presents you with a "bad guy," and you ultimately "beat" the game by blowing them up. And even in abstract games like Candy Crush or whatever, you're still presented with a series of "challenges" that you have to "overcome" by getting a "high score" – the game's metaphor isn't violent, but it's still dominance-based.
And of course as soon as you notice this you notice that this happens everywhere. Movies, for example, often don't have a lot of explicit violence (less so now that we've devolved to producing nothing but superhero movies, but still), but the plot almost always gets "resolved" by a symbolic assertion of dominance. There's often a contest or sports match or something at the end where the good guy winning it somehow solves the interpersonal problems that the movie is supposed to be about. A classic example occurs in Back to the Future: the story of George McFly's lack of self-confidence gets resolved by him punching someone in the face. What's funny about this is that it doesn't even make sense. George obviously doesn't know how to throw a punch, and punching someone doesn't generally render them instantly unconscious. But while the situation doesn't make sense in factual terms – the movie would be a failure if the point of it were to portray violence – it does make sense in ideological terms. What the movie is telling us is that the symbolic assertion of dominance is the most important thing in the world.
And it's far from the only thing telling us this. Indeed, we frequently hear this message in even more explicit terms from such sources as, oh, I don't know, the entire United States government.
I believe that the US, UK, & France did the right thing by striking Syria over chemical weapons. It will not stop the war nor save the Syrian people from many other horrors. It is illegal under international law. But it at least draws a line somewhere & says enough.
— Anne-Marie Slaughter (@SlaughterAM) April 14, 2018
What this is saying is precisely "this action was illegal, and it killed people, and it didn't accomplish anything, but it was still the right thing to do, because it was a symbolic assertion of dominance." This isn't a pathology or a mistake or a bad trend. It's how our society works. Spree killings get politicians super hard for the opportunity to put on their serious faces and play-act moral indignation, but when the government decides that some other country is impeding its geopolitical goals, then suddenly unleashing an orgy of omnidirectional violence is the only rational choice.
So you can see where the last dot is now, right? Spree killings don't make sense in functional terms, but they do make sense in symbolic ones – they are precisely symbolic assertions of dominance. The reason the mental health dodge is a dodge is because it's trivially true: a person capable of deciding to murder a room full of strangers is by definition not what we mean by "mentally healthy." It's not a explanation; it's a tautology. But the thing that it's dodging is the fact that the underlying ideology of spree killers is in no way deviant from the general ideology that society constantly pushes on everyone. Indeed, the problem that spree killers have is simply that they take this ideology too seriously. What they're supposed to do is release their frustrations in socially acceptable ways such as hating foreigners or bullying their subordinates at work or beating their wives. They're not supposed to act like they really mean it.
In case you care, though, video games still suck. The fact that they're not important enough to matter when compared to everything else doesn't change the fact that they're almost universally doing the wrong thing. There's still a strong distinction between the general form of engagement offered by video games compared to other forms of media. Other forms of media often rely on symbolic assertions of dominance as a emotional crutch, but the general case when playing a video game is that symbolically asserting dominance is the only thing you do.
If you're reading a book, for example, you have to work with the language you're reading it in, which is a social medium created by the interactions of everyone in the society, over time, and you have to consider what effect specific word choices have and how they convey the things that the book is trying to convey, which requires accounting for social context and psychology and all kinds of other things. All of this stuff comes into play even when you're just reading some juvenile action novel like Harry Potter where there's an evil wizard who gets blown up at the end. This is why reading and seeing movies and listening to music are all generally healthy habits to have, even when their specific content isn't all that great. At the very least, their basic structure connects to things that matter. Engaging with them forces you to be a person.
Indeed, pretty much the only activity you can engage in that doesn't work like this is playing a video game. Ironically for a medium that prides itself on "interactivity," gaming is frequently a completely thoughtless activity. You figure out – or, more often, the game just tells you – what action you need to take to "win," and then you just do that over and over again. Engaging with a video game forces you to be a robot.
This problem is so endemic to the medium that its influence is overwhelming even in cases that are explicitly trying to do the exact opposite. I'm not sure if people realize this, but Final Fantasy 7 is actually a prime example. The main character is your typical stoic mercenary coolguy, but the plot twist is that this is a facade. He's actually a dropout loser whose dreams of grandeur end up manifesting as a severe inferiority complex, such that he has to pretend to be a big strong hero in order to see himself as a worthwhile person. This is an explicit repudiation of the whole idea of the "hero" being the most powerful person who beats up the most bad guys; what the game is saying is that people who need this kind of assurance are delusional children. Except that then the game ends with a one-on-one macho shirtless swordfight where the hero uses his super cool sword attack to beat up the bad guy. What's amazing is that even within the context of the story, this doesn't resolve anything: the denouement concerns an entirely separate issue that doesn't have this sort of easy resolution, such that the game actually ends ambiguously. But the people making the game literally could not think of any climax other than a symbolic assertion of dominance, even though they had written an entire plot about how that sort of thing is stupid bullshit.
So the real problem with the "violence in video games" angle is aesthetic: it's the wrong criticism. Violence isn't the thing causing the problem. Indeed, one of the ways to make progress here is precisely by taking violence seriously as a concept. What violence actually is is a constraint: it physically prevents you from doing something. Furthermore, violence is not just one thing. It's not just about "winning"; there are a lot of different ways you can deploy it. A game that was really about violence would precisely not be a simplistic fetishization of dominance. So in this sense, video games actually need to become a lot more violent. They need to start imposing real constraints.
But the defensive reaction to this criticism is ultimately just denialism. Criticism is always an opportunity to do better (or, at the very least, in the case of bad criticism, to refine your approach such that you don't attract bad criticism), and games are capable of doing much, much better. Still, it's correct to point out that this line of argument gets nowhere near the real problem. The real reason that games don't cause violence is that all the damage a game could potentially do has already been done, far more effectively, by almost everything else in society. If you think banning games is going to help anything, you'd better start by banning the military.
Leave a comment Posted in Games, Politics Tagged aesthetics, dominance, Final Fantasy 7, game design, imperialism, spree killings, violence
Posted by Jason on March 29, 2018
Today in takes that I never expected would require levying: emotional teenagers are not going to redeem American politics. Surprisingly, I'm not enough of an asshole to criticize school shooting victims, so I'll start by pointing out that they're not actually doing anything wrong. They experienced a traumatizing event caused by a failure of policy, so they're raising the issue to the people who have the ability to do something about it. This is precisely the role that citizenry is supposed to play in a society that's supposed to be a democracy. The problem is with everyone else.
First of all, the media is completely full of shit here. They've had the ability this entire time to emphasize gun violence as a relevant political issue, and they've chosen to ignore it. They try to blame politicians for not responding to the fact that large majorities of people want more gun control, but what those numbers actually mean is that the media should already have been on top of this issue, because the numbers demonstrate that people care about it. One of the problems with the gun issue specifically is that the pro-gun forces are myopic zealots about it while the anti-gun forces recognize that there are other more important problems in the world, so the people who vote based on guns are overwhelmingly the former group. One of the jobs that the media is supposed to perform is to balance out coverage such that it accurately represents the distribution of opinions in the populace. Of course, what actually happens is the opposite: the media reliably locates the most psychotic available representatives of any given position and portrays them as the norm. (And this doesn't even get into framing; for example, any discussion of the Second Amendment here is a complete red herring, because the Second Amendment was not understood to protect an individual right to bear arms until literally 2008. If you take the "well-regulated militia" thing seriously, the Second Amendment is actually compatible with banning individual gun ownership.)
Furthermore, now that they're being forced to notice the issue, they're doing it in exactly the wrong way. The overwhelming majority of gun violence takes the form of suicides or accidents – school shootings are its least representative example. So not only should a properly functioning media be making this clear, but because the real causes of gun violence have been ongoing and are not based on dramatic spectacles, they should have been doing that this entire time. The fact that it falls to teenagers to shoulder this burden should be the furthest thing from a point of pride: it's a source of deep, irredeemable shame. I mean, I'm not actually on an anti-media rant here; there have been plenty of people contextualizing the issue properly and pointing out that a lot of the proposed solutions would be deeply counterproductive. But the fact that the media is indulging in spectacle here, as well as the fact that they required a spectacle in order to get off their asses, illustrates the fundamental failure: the media doesn't actually "investigate" or "raise issues." They chase trends.
But the fact that we're talking policy at all here is also its own problem. There's nothing condescending about pointing out that most people have no fucking idea what would or wouldn't be a good gun control policy. It will always necessarily be the case that most people don't know about most things, because there are only so many hours in the day to spend reading up on shit. It's natural for people, especially people who have been directly affected by an issue, to come up with objectively asinine solutions like this:
"Why don't we have Kevlar vests in classrooms for our students? Why don't we build our walls with Kevlar so that kids aren't being shot through their own walls because they're so cheaply built?"
Having people who specifically know stuff about policy and whose job it is to come up with effective solutions is not "elitism," it's just, like, people having different jobs. Everyone can't be an expert on everything. So, again, the role of the general citizenry is to raise the issue, which should then lead the people whose job it is to both understand the issue in its proper context and come up with good solutions. Yet it's pretty much a constant in political discourse to ask random assholes off the street to start opining about policy details, which is at best a complete waste of time and usually actively counterproductive. It's not their job. Indeed, the failure in the above quote belongs not to the person who said it, but to the person who framed the issue such that the quote was produced in the first place. Shoving a camera in a grieving person's face and asking them to elucidate policy prescriptions on the spot is exactly how you don't do political journalism.
But of course we don't actually have "elites" in this country, in the substantive sense of the term. We have a ruling class, but it very rarely includes anyone who's any good at anything. What we actually have is elitism without eliteness. Our op-ed columnists are all anti-intellectual hacks, our philanthropists have all the philosophical sophistication of teenage Randroids, and our think tanks are all either partisan hackeries or nepotist sinecures. The role of think tanks here is especially important. The actual function they perform is to take the existing ideological biases of the ruling class and develop policies that satisfy those biases. The increasing salience of healthcare is making this particularly obvious. Everyone knows that the only real solution here is to take the profit motive out of medicine, but we've had to deal with decades of nonsense about "market-based solutions" or fucking whatever for no reason other than the ruling class having already decided that only solutions that preserve the ability to extract profits out of people's illnesses were acceptable. An actual good-faith effort to develop a better healthcare system would have had single-payer implemented almost immediately, but instead it's only just now becoming a credible option due to literally everyone in the country clamoring for it. Which is, you know, nice, but there's no excuse for making us push that boulder all the way up the hill. It is, indeed, the exact opposite of the way that our society is supposed to be organized, and it gives the lie to the entire notion of having "qualified" people in charge. Not only do we have politicians who pick their own voters, but we also have policies that pick their own advocates.
And the thing about politicians really does bear repeating: the American political process fundamentally does not respond to what people actually want. The things that are supposed to function as democratic inputs to the system are almost all distractions. It doesn't matter if some goober like Marco Rubio goes on TV and "gets his ass handed to him," because after that he just goes back to Washington and keeps voting for more guns. It's all just a day at the office for him. And the fact that it's entertaining for us is a problem, because it focuses our attention in the wrong place, and makes us feel like something's happening when it isn't. It seems like a politician being humiliated on an important issue ought to matter somehow, but it just doesn't. It's empty catharsis. The reason people want this to be a watershed moment is, ironically, because they want to believe that they live in a functional society. They want to believe that a strong enough emotional appeal is enough to change things. Unfortunately, there's little evidence to support this assumption. There's no necessary connection between what people care about and the actions the ruling class chooses to take.
Worse, our general understanding of how to change things is similarly flawed. It's beyond cliche to assert that "real change" is made by "ordinary people" going "out in the streets," but there's no necessary reason for this to be true. Politicians are just as capable of ignoring protests as they are of ignoring news stories and adversarial interviews. We're still sort of razzled and dazzled by the mythology of the Civil Rights Movement, which is understandable, since that actually did result in unbelievably sweeping changes and it actually was powered by protests. So that really makes it seem like protesting is the thing to do. But even Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized that his commitment to nonviolent protest was as much a tactical choice as it was a moral one: it was the thing that happened to be effective at that time. It's obvious that this wouldn't have worked at earlier points in history – nobody would have given a shit if the slaves had "protested" – and it can't simply be assumed that it's going to continue working at this point in history.
It's important to emphasize here that the point is not whether protesting is "good" or "bad," but simply that it's not magic. It has specific effects at specific times. For example, the first Women's March last year actually turned out to have important effects, which I'll admit I didn't anticipate. Due to the combination of Trump's inauguration being underattended and the immediately proceeding marches being overattended, they had the effect of creating the narrative of an embattled presidency from day one. This wasn't necessarily going to happen. The first time Trump gave a speech off of a teleprompter and exploited a war widow, the media fell right on his dick. All those hacks are thirsty as fuck for legitimizing whoever the big man wearing the suit happens to be, so there was a real danger that Trump was going to become the new normal. Consistent and indeed obnoxious opposition made this not happen. (Worryingly, though, only half of this is actually due to the opposition – the other half is because Trump really is that much of a clueless bumblefuck. It would be the easiest thing in the world for him to just "act presidential" while doing all of the exact same things, but he's just plain too incompetent to hack it. This has been said before, but what we're really learning here is how deeply vulnerable America is to a competent fascist.) The second march, on the other hand, had no such contextual focus, so it didn't do anything. It came and went. Even striking only works when you actually have your ducks in a row. The exact same tactic can just as easily be effective or useless depending on when and how it's deployed.
And there's still a very real danger that this is going to backfire. I mean, if you're demanding "action" from the current administration, that's exactly what you're going to get. Naomi Klein's "shock doctrine" theory still holds up pretty well here: whenever there's cause for change, the ruling class uses the opportunity to make the changes they want. The NRA responds to literally every situation by calling for more guns, because that's what they want, and they're the people who are capable of getting what they want. It's not at all surprising that we're now seeing calls for constant police presence in schools: this is exactly the thing that we should expect to happen, given the current parameters of the society that we live in. This is the real threat that requires our opposition.
So there actually is a problem with what the teens are doing here: they're making this about "safety."1 It's not. You can't ever fully prevent things like mass shootings. Like, it's appropriate to say "never again" to something like the Holocaust that has a lot of moving parts. Everything had to go wrong in order for it to happen, so as long as we remember to stay on guard against it, we should always be able to stop things before they get to that level (though that's obviously a heavy "should"). A mass shooting is the opposite type of event: only one thing has to go wrong in order for it to happen, which means something like that is always going to be a possibility (even if you actually ban guns, there are still cars and homemade explosives and what have you). Obviously, things can be made safer; reducing the raw number of guns present will naturally reduce the number of gun-related accidents, and reduce the probability that the wrong person will have access to a gun at the wrong time. But there's always going to be a chance that a gun is going to get through somewhere, which means, if you're fully insistent on safety, that you have to institute a safeguard against that . . . and it has to be more of a threat than the gunner is capable of providing, or else it won't be a deterrent . . . and it has to be everywhere, since you never know where the breach is going to occur. There's only one conclusion: the logic of safety leads inexorably to a police state.
Thus, the quietist argument is in fact the best argument to be made against gun control. The rate of school shooting deaths is extremely low, and the rate of other deaths is comparable to other everyday threats, so the problem simply does not merit bothering with. If preventing deaths is what you're after, you're better off looking just about anywhere else. But there's a better argument to be made on the other side: because guns don't do anything useful, we might as well just go ahead and ban them. More than that, guns themselves already have negative utility, even before anyone gets shot. The whole "guns don't kill people" thing is really the worst argument ever made, because of course guns kill people. Killing people is the only thing that guns do; it's the entire reason they exist. Guns are objects, but nothing is "just" an object, because objects aren't neutral. Without a gun it's pretty fucking difficult to kill a person on accident, or even on purpose, but with a gun it's trivially easy. This is a direct result of what type of object a gun is: it's an object that kills people as effectively as possible.
The police state response at least honestly accounts for this: it acknowledges the fact that guns are extremely dangerous, and therefore advances an equally dangerous countermeasure as the only way to stop them. And this is a pro-safety argument: it is precisely not based on the idea that gun violence is "the price of freedom," but rather the idea that safety must be preserved at any cost. It's exactly the logical conclusion you get from following through on statements like "we cannot allow one more child to be shot at school." The problem with this conclusion isn't that it's unsafe, it's that it sucks. The threat of school shootings is better than a police state – and it's also better than owning guns in the first place. That is, if it really were that case that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," we should still be opposed to guns, because guns are bad. We should accept the threat of gun violence for the sake of getting rid of guns.
That is: let's grant the NRA their empirical argument. It may in fact be that case that, in a gun-saturated society, a lot of people who would otherwise do bad things won't do them, but the reason for this is that they're afraid of getting shot. And the only way this works is if everyone lives in that state of fear, all the time. A society where everyone constantly carries guns with the intent of using them to stop crimes is just a distributed and untrained police state. So the empirical issue of whether this type of society is "safer" or not is ultimately beside the point, because it's an undesirable way to live regardless of the specific consequences that ensue from it. The cure is worse than the disease. The other alternative is that we remove as much violence as possible from everyday living, which will necessarily make us more vulnerable on those occasions when violence does end up occurring. Obviously, we're not going to make ourselves naively vulnerable, reasonable safeguards are still reasonable, but it is within our abilities to focus on living well rather than jumping at every shadow and cowering around every corner. This is the argument that actually disarms the NRA, because it takes away the only real motivation they have, which is fear. What the NRA truly stands for is cowardice, so it's important for those of us who oppose them to ensure that we do not make the same mistake.
An excessive focus on safety will always eventually resolve itself into illusion. There isn't really anything that's perfectly safe, but there are things that look that way, so doing something that looks safe is your actual practical option. If you're scared of violent immigrants, there isn't any real approach you can take to ensure that you're never victimized. But you could, hypothetically, build some kind of big symbol that represents safety, such that looking at it and knowing that it's there makes you feel safe, even though it doesn't really do anything. I mean, living in denial really is a real choice you can make, and it's the choice that most Americans make most of the time. So this isn't a trivial dilemma. We really do have to decide what our values are. A magical Care Bear society where nothing bad ever happens is not one of the options, because there's no such thing. The actual options are a society of constant violence where all problems are solved through further repression, or a society of civility where we accept the threat of tragedy for the sake of preserving human dignity. This is a real choice that has honest advocates on both sides. It's clear to me what the right choice is, and if it's clear to you, too, you shouldn't hide behind facile invocations of "safety" and "responsibility." You should say what you really believe.
And the extent to which the teens aren't doing this is simply the extent to which they're acting the way they've been taught to. They watch the news and they know that you're supposed to say things like "this is not a political issue" and ask "tough questions" and make histrionic statements about "living in terror," so that's what they've been doing. But their initial emotional response was the right one. If the same number of kids had died as the result of a bus crash or something, it wouldn't have had the same galvanizing effect, because there wouldn't have been anything obviously "wrong" with it. But a society swimming in guns is, to these kids, obviously wrong, which is why they're not standing for it. They actually do have a strong grasp on the relevant value claim here. The only problem is that the rest of us are doing our damnedest to pry it away from them. The potential negative consequences of their actions are simply a result of their being filtered through a society that gets literally everything wrong.
Violence is always a political issue, and there are more than two sides to every story. Getting your own story straight – making the right argument instead of the easy one – is the only thing that gives an ordinary person any real power. Doing the opposite, saying the easiest thing, or the thing that attracts the most attention, is how you ensure that society will be able to resolve your passion into support for the status quo. Most importantly, any issue of substance is not merely a "mistake" or an "inefficiency," but a real value contest, with someone on the other side who is genuinely opposed to what you believe in and is pushing against you as hard as they can. They'll act like they aren't, like they "want what's best for everyone" and are "just trying to find a reasonable solution," but the fact that there was a problem in the first place – that you felt that scream in your heart insisting that this is wrong – is what proves them to be liars. The task of creating a real society is precisely the task of identifying your enemies and figuring out how to kill them. None of the easy targets here matter. Indeed, the reason they're easy targets is because they don't matter – they're decoys. The thing we need to call BS on here is America.
We're never going to be able to return to innocence, because innocence was an illusion in the first place. There never was a Garden of Eden, there's just the regular kind of garden, where sometimes things grow and sometimes they don't – which, of course, makes it all the more important to apply our full efforts to the task. But the real threat we have to watch out for isn't that young lives might be cut short. It's that they're going to grow up shaped by the confines of the same system that killed their peers, and, in so doing, become just like the rest of us.
Yeah, I know, I'm an asshole. Surprise! ↩
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged fuck the police, gun control, guns, media dorks, NRA, Parkland shooting, Second Amendment, so many cowards so little time, violence
We all had a good laugh when Apple decided that the future of technology was making you unlock your phone by wiggling it in front of your face, every time you need to use it, in public. But the thing about extremely stupid ideas is that they have real underlying causes, which is why the funniest things are often simultaneously the most serious. This is no exception, and the real issue here is particularly not pretty.
We should start by admitting an oft-ignored truth, which is that passwords are good. They're the correct form of security at the level of the individual user, and the reason for this is that they are a proper technical implementation of consent. The problem is that, when a system gets a request to provide access to an account, it has no idea why or from where the request is coming in; it just has the request itself. So the requirement is that access is provided if and only if the person associated with the account wants it to be provided. The way you implement this is by establishing an unambiguous communication signal. This works just like a safe word in a BDSM scene: you take a signal that would normally never occur and assign a fixed meaning to it, so that when it does occur, you know exactly what it means. That's what a password is, and that's why it works. "Security questions," on the other hand, are precisely how passwords don't work, because anything personally associated with you is not a low frequency signal. Anyone who knows that information can just send it in, so it doesn't accord with user consent. All those celebrities who got hacked were actually compromised through their security questions, because of course they were, because personal information about celebrities is publicly available. They would have been perfectly fine had their email systems simply relied on generic passwords.
Furthermore, none of the alleged problems with passwords are real problems. The reason for all the stupid alternate-character requirements on passwords is supposedly that they increase complexity, but this doesn't actually matter. The only thing that matters is that the signal is low frequency, and the problem with a password like "password123" isn't that it lacks some particular combination of magic characters,1 but is simply that it's high frequency. But anything that wouldn't be within a random person's top 100 guesses is, for practical purposes, zero frequency, so a password like "kittensarecute" or "theboysarebackintown" is essentially 100% secure. There's no actual reason to complicate it any further, and in fact several reasons not to, because forgetting your password or having to write it down are real security threats.
Literally the only problem with simple passwords like this is that they can be hacked; that is, a computer program can derive them from a fixed pattern. If your password is a combination of dictionary words, then a "dictionary attack" can derive it from all the possible combinations of all the words in the dictionary in a relatively short amount of time, because that's actually not all that much data. The frequency isn't low enough. But the thing about this is that it's portrayed as an end-user problem when it isn't one at all; it's a server problem. A user can't actually guess how their password is going to be hacked; the attacker might use a dictionary attack, or they might pick a different pattern that happens to match the one you used in an attempt to evade a dictionary attack. The real way to prevent this is for the server to disallow it – the server shouldn't allow a frequency of attempts high enough to convert a low-frequency signal into a high-frequency one. Preventing this isn't the user's job, because they can't actually do anything about it. The server can.
And of course no one is ever actually going to hack your password. You don't matter enough for anyone to care. What actually happens, as one hears about constantly in the news, is that a company's server gets breached and all the passwords on it are compromised from the back end. When this happens, the strength and secrecy of your password are completely irrelevant, because the attacker already has your credentials, no matter what form they're in. Again, this is not a problem with passwords. The passwords are doing their job; it's the server that's failing.
So the thing about biometrics is that they're worse than passwords, because they don't implement consent. At best, they implement identity, but that's not what you want. If the police arrest you and want to snoop through your phone without a warrant, they have your identity, so if your phone is secured through biometrics, they have access to it without your consent. But they don't have your password unless you give it to them. Similarly, the ability of passwords to be changed when needed is a strength. It's part of the implementation of consent: if the situation changes such that the previously agreed-upon term no longer communicates the thing its supposed to communicate, you have to be able to change it. In BDSM terms, if your safe word is "lizard," but then you want to do a scene about, y'know, lizard people or something, then the word isn't going to convey the right thing anymore, so you have to come up with a new one. This is the same thing that happens in a data breach: because someone else knows your password, it no longer communicates consent – but precisely because you can change it, it can continue to perform its proper function. Whereas if someone steals your biometric data, you're fucked forever. So when Apple touts the success rate or whatever of their face-scanning thing, they've completely missed the point. It doesn't matter how accurate it is, because it implements the wrong thing.2
So, given all of this, why would a major company expend the amount of resources required to implement biometrics? We've already seen the answers. First, passwords look bad from the end-user perspective, because they feel insecure – unless you're forced to use a random jumble of characters, in which case they feel obnoxious. And in either case you have to manage multiple passwords, which can be genuinely difficult. Biometrics, by contrast, feel secure, even though they're not, and they're very easy to use. They also feel "future-y," allowing companies to sell them like some big new fancy innovation, when they're actually a step backwards. In short, they're pretty on the outside. At the risk of putting too fine a point on it, Apple is invested in the conceptualization of technology as magic.
More than that, though, biometrics demonstrate a focus on the appearance of security at the expense of its actuality – that is, they're security theater. What all those data breaches in the news indicate is that, for all the ridiculous security paraphernalia that gets foisted on us, companies don't actually bother much with security on their end. They don't want to spend the money, so they make you do it, and because you can't do it, because you don't actually have the necessary means, the result is actual insecurity. Thus, the appearance of security, mediated by opaque technology that most people don't understand, provides these companies with cover for their own incompetence. The only function being performed here by "technology" is distraction.3
What this means, then, is that technology isn't technology. That is, the things that we talk about when we talk about "tech" aren't actually about tech. Indeed, "tech companies" aren't even tech companies4. Google and Facebook make their money through advertising; they're ad companies. The fact that they use new types of software to sell their ads is only relevant to their business model in that provides a shimmery sci-fi veneer to disguise their true, hideous forms. Amazon is not actually a website; it's a big-box retailer in exactly the same vein as Target and Wal-Mart. A lot of people thought it was "ironic" when Amazon stated opening physical stores, but that's only the case if you assume that Amazon has some kind of ideological commitment to online ordering. What Amazon has an ideological commitment to is capturing market share, and they're going to keep doing that using whatever technological means are available to them. Driving physical retailers out of business and then filling the vacuum with their own physical stores is precisely in line with how Amazon operates – it's what you should expect them to do, if you actually understand what type of thing they are. Uber is only an "app" in the sense that that mediates their actual business model, which is increasing the profits of taxi services by evading regulations and passing costs on the the drivers (Uber's business model doesn't account for the significant maintenance costs incurred by constantly operating a vehicle, because those costs are borne by the drivers, who aren't Uber's employees. But Uber still takes the same cut of the profits regardless.) Apple is the closest, since they actually develop new technology, but even then they mostly make money by selling hardware (after having it manufactured as cheaply as possible), meaning they're really just in the old-fashioned business of commodity production.
So if you try to understand these companies in terms of "tech," you're going to get everything wrong. There isn't a design reason why Apple makes the choices it does; there's a business reason. Nobody actually wanted an iPhone without a headphone port, but Apple relies on their sleek, minimalist imagery to move products, so they had to make the phone slimmer, even if it meant removing useful functionality. And of course no one is ever going to be interested in a solid-glass phone that shatters into a million pieces when you sneeze at it, but Apple had to come up with something that looked impressive to appease the investors and the media drones, so that's what we got.
But this isn't even limited to just these "new" companies; it's the general dynamic by which technology relates to economics. There's been a recent countertrend of elites pointing out that, actually, modern society is pretty great from a historical perspective, but they're missing the point that this is despite our system of social organization, not because of it. That is, barring extreme disasters along the lines of the bubonic plague or the thing that we're currently running headlong into, it would be incomprehensibly bizarre for the general standard of living not to increase over time. As long as humans are engaged in any productive activity at all, things are going to continuously get better, because things are being produced. The fact that we're not seeing this – that real wages have been stagnant for decades and people are more stressed and have less leisure time then ever – indicates that we are in the midst of precisely such a disaster. Our current economic system is a world-historical catastrophe on par with the Black Death.
Do I even need to explicitly point out that this is why global warming is happening? It isn't because of technology, it's because rich fucks have decided they'd rather destroy the world for a short-term profit than be slightly less rich. It's somewhat unfortunate that the physics are such that everyone is going to die, but the decision itself was made a long time ago. If it wasn't greenhouse gasses, it would be something else. There's always nuclear war or mass starvation or what have you. The fact of the matter is that we've chosen a social configuration that doesn't support human life. That's the whole story.
To address this technically, it's certainly true that the age of capitalism has seen a vast increase in worldwide standards of living, but it's not capitalism that caused that. It's actually the opposite: trade and industrialization created the conditions for capitalism to become possible in the first place. Capitalism is not the cause of industrialization or globalization, it's the response to these things. It is the determination of how the results of these things will be applied, and what actually happens it that it ensures that the gains will always be pointed in the wrong direction. The fact of globalization has nothing to do with any of the problems attributed to it; the problems reside entirely in how globalization is happening: who's managing it, what their priorities are, and where the results are going. Like, it's really amazing to consider how much potential productivity is being wasted right now. All the people employed in advertising, or in building yachts, or in think tanks, or on corporate advisory boards, or in failed attempts at "regime change," or designing new gadgets that are less functional then the old ones, or all those dumbass "internet-connected" kitchen appliances, all of that, all of the time and energy and resources being spent on all of that stuff and far more, is all pure waste. Imagine the kind of society we could have if all of that potential were actually being put to productive use.
And it's deeply hilarious how committed everyone is to misunderstanding this as thoroughly as possible. Like, the actual word we have for someone who negatively fetishizes technology is "Luddite," but the Luddites were precisely people who cared about the practical results of technology – they cared about the fact that their livelihoods were being destroyed. They attacked machines because those machines were killing them. Every clueless takemonger inveighing about how globalization is leaving people behind or social media is dividing us or smartphones are alienating us is completely failing to grasp the basic point that the Luddites instinctively understood. The results of technological developments are not properties of the technology itself; they arise from political choices. The technology is simply the means by which those choices are implemented. In just the same way, attacking technology is not merely a symptom of incomprehension or phobia or lifestyle. It is also a political choice.
An engine doesn't tell you where to go or how to travel. It just generates kinetic energy. It can take you past the horizon, but if you instead point it into a ditch, it will be equally happy to drive you straight into the dirt. There's nothing counterintuitive about that; the function of technology is no great mystery. It just obeys the rules – not only the physical ones, but the social ones as well. All of the problems that people attribute to technology (excepting things like software glitches that are actual implementation failures) are actually problems with the rules. The great lesson of the age of technology is that technology doesn't matter; as long as society continues on in its present configuration, everything will continue to get worse.
The way you can tell that complexity requirements are bullshit is that they're all different. There are plenty of nerds available to run the numbers on this, so if there really were a particular combination of requirements that resulted in "high security," it would have been figured out by now and the same solution would have been implemented everywhere. But because the actual solution is contextual – that is, it's the thing that no one else is guessing, which also means it's unstable – you can't implement it as a fixed list of requirements. The reason it feels like each website's requirements are just some random ideas that some intern thought sounded "secure" enough is because that's actually what they are. ↩
I mean, face-scanning can't actually work the way they say it does, because of identical twins. If the scan can distinguish between identical twins, that means it's using contextual cues such as hair and expression, which means there are cases when these things would cause it to fail for an individual user, and if it can't distinguish between identical twins (or doppelgangers), then that's also a failure. I'd also be curious to know how much work the engineers put into controlling for makeup, because that's a pretty common and major issue, and I'm guessing the answer is not much. ↩
The real situation is significantly more dire than this. It isn't just that Equifax, for example, sucks at security, it's that Equifax should not exist in the first place. Taking the John Oliver Strategy and making fun of Equifax for being a bunch of dummies completely misses what's really going on here. ↩
I'm not giving up my "tech assholes" tag though, it's too perfect. ↩
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged Apple, biometrics, capitalism, global warming, passwords, security, tech assholes, we are all devo now
A glass darkly
Posted by Jason on February 26, 2018
Oprah Winfrey and Donald Trump are the same person. If you don't understand this, you don't understand anything.
First of all, they're both rich fucks. This isn't, like, a coincidence. People don't "just happen" to get rich. Your relationship to the material conditions of your existence is one of the primary determinants of who you are as a person. Before we even get into any other considerations, the actual act of being rich is itself immoral. When you or I imagine being "rich," we imagine things like having a big house in a quiet neighborhood and a fancy car and an extensive record collection, but this isn't what being actually rich is like. Being actually rich means literally having more money than it is physically possible to spend – even after resorting to ridiculous luxuries like owning three summer vacation mansions filled with rare art collections that you only visit one week a year or buying a Hawaiian island. It's difficult to really imagine what things like this are like, which is why a lot of people resist this argument: they can't imagine a situation where losing money results in no material deprivation whatsoever. But this is the real situation that our society has decided to create for some people, and it's the situation that Winfrey and Trump both inhabit every waking moment. Every dollar they hoard is a dollar's worth of food taken out of the mouth of a starving person. There is no word for this other than "evil."
People like to talk about whether rich fucks "deserve" their money or not, but this is completely irrelevant to the argument. Remember, we're talking about money in excess of the amount that you can actually spend on all the luxuries and projects during the amount of time you're awake each day. Since you would lose absolutely nothing by giving it away, since your life would remain exactly the same with or without it, whereas lots of other people's lives would improve immeasurably upon receiving even the tiniest fraction of it, there can be no possible justification for keeping it, regardless of its source. It doesn't matter whether the money came from a big sack you found in the street or whether it was a boon bestowed upon you by god herself in recognition of your exceptional personal character. Philanthropy, which we'll discuss further in just a moment, has no effect on this, because the issue is not how much money is being given away, but how much is being kept. A person living paycheck to paycheck does not lose virtue points for not giving to charity, because all the money they have is already being put to valuable use. A rich fuck does lose virtue points for every dollar they keep in the bank, because that money is being kept from people whom it could be helping. It is the actual holding of the money, in a situation where billions of others need money to survive, that constitutes the immorality. And considering the scale of the situation, this pretty much overrides any other possible concerns regarding what kind of person someone is. Like, if you knew someone whose construction company built concentration camps, you wouldn't really give a shit if they seemed nice and empathetic in person. This is almost exactly the same thing.
But even if we do feel the need to interrogate the source of money as an indication of its recipient's character, Winfrey and Trump are still in the same situation. Just as being rich is not a coincidence, getting rich is also a matter of a particular type of interfacing with present social conditions. Again, when you or I imagine getting rich, we imagine things like getting a big promotion or writing a bestselling novel or something – something that reflects our own abilities and doesn't hurt anyone else. This isn't how getting actually rich works. In a capitalist society, they way you make money is through exploitation. People who work for a living can only ever make enough to cover their own expenses, maybe with some extra left over for luxuries and savings if their skills happen to be in demand at the time. The way you make walking-around money is by extracting the value of other people's labor, and the way you make a lot of money is by extracting a lot of value from the labor of a lot of people. The way you get actually rich is by building an empire. I mean, that's exactly the term we use, we call things "media empires" or "construction empires," and that's exactly what they are. They're giant exploitation engines in which the lives of millions of people are ground up into lubricant for the lifestyles of the rulers. It's really not even a metaphor; they literally consume people's flesh and blood. The fact that Winfrey is a self-made man and Trump is a trust fund baby doesn't really impinge on any of this. If anything, it reflects worse on Winfrey; Trump inherited his father's immorality, while Winfrey built her towering edifice of bullshit with her own two hands. Because we live in a society that allocates resources immorally, the people who succeed in it are the people who are the most immoral. Making money is a bad thing that makes you a bad person.
Those are the general principles, but this particular comparison is especially interesting, because Winfrey and Trump are not merely representatives of the same class, but representatives of the same belief system, with exactly the same M.O. Like, Bill Gates got rich by being a monopolist, but his company actually did produce products that people use. He added something to the world. Winfrey and Trump do not merit even this basic distinction; they are pure self-advertisers whose only product is their own image. The way Trump operated was not by actually building things, but by buying other people's products and inflating their value through hype campaigns. Since the hype always far exceeds any actual value (especially since Trump has negative taste and can therefore be counted on to always select the worst products), there's inevitably a collapse, at which point Trump sends out his lawyers and accountants to pocket the proceeds and leave other people holding the losses. In almost exactly the same way, Winfrey attaches herself to other people's books and ideas and uses them to inflate her own image. Since the marketing of these things always far exceeds their actual content (especially since Winfrey is a credulous hack and can therefore be counted on to always select the most diluted variety of snake-oil on display), the fad inevitably dies out, at which point Winfrey shields herself from any fallout by simply moving on to the next trend (or occasionally issuing a Serious Apology if there's a real scandal). People like this are worse even than rentiers, since they don't even own the things they put their names on. They are pure value extractors; perfect parasites.
Even more than that, though, the similarities in Winfrey's and Trump's approaches point to something deeper than circumstantial convergence; they point to the same underlying ideology. Focusing solely on image and advertising necessarily requires complete adherence to existing values and standards. This is because symbols have to have referents; people have to know what you're talking about, and if there's no actual underlying product with its own value, the only way this is possible is if you're saying something that people already believe.
When personal computers first came out, they were a new type of thing, so people didn't already understand what they could do. This meant they couldn't be marketed with pure bullshit, but had to actually function such that people who used them got something out of it. The same thing happened with smartphones; Apple's insufferable advertising notwithstanding, it was only once people started using smartphones and experiencing the various things they could do (not all of it good, but still) that they became popular. A less compromised example is the Sriracha hot sauce guy. Sriracha has become a cultural buzzword in the complete absence of any marketing or promotion of it whatsoever. I had no idea where the stuff even came from until I saw that article. Because it's a quality product, you don't have to conjure up fantasies of fun-loving bikini girls or rugged manliness in order to sell it. It's actually good; it has its own value, and is therefore able to speak for itself.
So here's the important part: if you don't have something with its own value, then you do have to rely on all that other stuff; you have to piggyback off of preexisting sources of value. You obviously have to have some sort of value claim in order to make a pitch to people. If you have a valuable product, this claim can potentially be something new. The concept of "personal productivity" didn't used to be a thing, but once various types of machines became popularly accessible, it became something that could actually exist and was therefore possible to value. New values like this may or may not end up being good things, of course, but at least they're new, and they're based on real things that people can do. If you don't have a source of value, you have no basis from which to make a new claim, so you have to make an old one. You have to play to a preestablished fantasy.
The fantasy that Trump plays to is the fantasy of opulence. It's the idea that money determines everything in the world, and therefore aligning yourself with money gets you the best possible experience. Buying Trump-branded products ensures that you're getting the most expensive and therefore highest-quality goods, and therefore living the best possible life for that and only that reason. The fantasy that Winfrey plays to is the fantasy of self-help. This is almost exactly the same idea: that choosing the right products and thinking the right way amounts to a secret formula for living a perfect life. Buying the products and following the trends chosen by Winfrey's magical insight ensures that you're getting real true meaning, and therefore living the best possible life for that and only that reason. (Also, do people really not notice that Winfrey specifically plays to the Magical Negro stereotype? Her whole thing is being "spiritual" and "authentic" and using that to serve as a lifestyle guide for rich white women. I don't understand why people who would raise hell about this sort of thing in any other context give a pass to the one person who deserves it the least.)
The only actual difference between Winfrey and Trump is aesthetic. Specifically, Trump caters to the masculine side of the consumerist fantasy, selling suits and steaks and golf club memberships to promote the ideal of being a big important businessman, while Winfrey caters to the feminine side, selling diets and empathy and mindfulness to promote the ideal of being a magical unicorn princess. The reason this makes Winfrey look better on the TV is that femininity is significantly closer to a real standard of what being a decent person is like than masculinity is. (As just a few examples, femininity includes care, attention to detail, a focus on practical reality, and a basic level of concern for other people.) But a) aesthetics, while nontrivial, do not override morality, and b) Winfrey's aesthetics are still overwhelmingly the aesthetics of rich fucks, which is to say their similarities with Trump's are greater than their differences. Trump's business books actually are self-help books, just marketed to a different audience. Trump University is exactly the same thing as The Secret, sold with exactly the same language.
Thus, Winfrey, no less than Trump, is a complete prisoner of the existing social order. Under ordinary circumstances this would merely be pitiable, but because these people have actual power, they do not only suffer from but also actively advance these harmful values. Their ideological commitments go so deep that they are unable to escape them even when they're trying to help. Trump's idea of charity is giving away free rounds of golf, and his idea of helping people is Trump University, an actual shakedown factory so blunt mafiosi would consider it beneath their honor. Winfrey, while less of an explicit con artist and more of an actual philanthropist, still favors spectacle over substance, as most famously illustrated by her stupid car giveaway stunt. Like, first of all, this was a stunt. I fucking cannot stand people who treat stunts like they're real things. They're fake. That's the whole thing that a stunt is. Anyway, the point is that this is also bad charity. Cars are a modern necessity, so people generally have the number of cars they need, and people attending Oprah tapings are not exactly those in the most dire need of financial assistance. The reason she did this was not out of any consideration of how much it would help people, but because it would reflect well on her: because the recipients are sympathetic and the narrative plays into the "American Dream" – and of course because it gives her a big televised platform to grandstand on. Indeed, this is the exact definition of "philanthropy": even "good" philanthropy isn't actually good, because philanthropy is bad charity that promotes the giver more than it helps anyone.
The more concise way to put all of this is that Winfrey and Trump have both killed people through active negligence. Trump hires undocumented workers on the cheap and skimps on safety, resulting in injury and death. Obeying the capitalist imperative to generate profit, he stiffs contractors for his own gain, forcing them to forgo medical care and other necessities. Winfrey promotes quack science, fad diets, and fraudulent psychology, covering up their reality with her own aura of glamour. These are things which people, trusting her, take into their bodies, physically harming them. It's hard to trace causality here, but given her reach, it's a statistical certainty that this has harmed people's health and resulted in deaths. There's no room for sentimentality here. (Also, people with sentimental feelings toward Winfrey should consider that Trump's fans have exactly the same sentimental feelings towards him, for exactly the same reasons.) People like this have no place in any decent society. I mean, come on. Both of them sell magazines named after themselves with pictures of themselves on the cover, every month. Come on. I'm embarrassed to even be talking about this.
Maybe this line of argument strikes you as a particularly unfair variety of false equivalence, because Winfrey is clearly a much better person than Trump. Of course she is. Trump is the worst possible person; you get exactly zero virtue points for being better than him, because literally every human is a better person than Donald Trump (as are most dogs and cats and probably a fair number of moles and squirrels). Like, the fact that Winfrey is against sexual assault rather than being a confessed sexual assailant is, y'know, better, but it's not impressive. Back in the day, we used to call things like that "meeting basic standards of human decency." More to the point, though, it doesn't really matter whether you're a good person or not. It matters what you do; it matters what effect your existence has on the rest of the world. It matters whether you're doing something useful for people or whether you're paving the road to hell.
I genuinely cannot believe that it has come to this, but I'm actually going to throw the fucking bible at you:
13 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Our only access to reality is through perception, and perception is always partial. Sometimes what we're seeing is obscured by the glass we're looking through, and sometimes what we're seeing is actually just a smudge on the glass itself rather than something on the other side. Because of this, no piece of evidence is ever a slam dunk. Anything that looks good from one angle might turn out to be hideously ugly from another. What this means is that you need to have an organizing principle with which to make sense of your observations. Without that, each individual observation can only stand briefly on its own before the changing wind sweeps it away into insignificance; "whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." If you don't have the truth, you don't have anything.
The tricky part, of course, is to determine what kind of thing we're really talking about here; that is, what exactly is meant by "charity." It's originally a translation of the Greek word agape, which means something along the lines of selfless loyalty. It's not something that you like or that makes you feel good, but something that you choose to be for, regardless of circumstance. Thus, the fact that someone says something that sounds good or does something that appeals to you can never be taken as independent evidence. It must always be evaluated for its accordance with the truth. As Nietzsche puts it, "the knight of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends." (You're reading claws of love dot com, the internet's #1 source for Nietzschean bible study.)
The part of this that's wrong is the part where the truth is magic. It is incorrect to say, as people often do, that perception is "flawed" or "misleading," as this implies that there exists a source of "correct" information that reveals things "as they really are." In fact, there is no reality outside perception, but rather only reality through perception. This does not license us to engage in knee-jerk subjectivity. It does exactly the opposite. It requires us to go beyond each individual impression and to formulate a broad understanding composed of the data from multiple lines of perception. "There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective 'knowing'; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our 'concept' of this thing, our 'objectivity,' be." It's not just that "that which is perfect" will never actually come, but that there is no such thing, which means that "that which is in part" constitutes everything that there is. We can never get out of the wicked game; no one is ever a saint or a hero, no indicator is ever universally reliable and no narrative is ever complete. We always have to do the work of figuring out how things fit together, how multiple perceptions accord, and how to create understanding out of disparate parts. You can't do this using "just the facts," because the facts themselves can't tell you how to organize those facts. You need something outside of the facts. Christians call this thing "charity," Nietzsche calls it "will," but I just think of it as the truth. And in a society that insists on smooth, clean, one-line narratives, the truth will always cut hard against the grain. It is the responsibility of anyone who claims to be a person to make those cuts. This is the only way to make anything make sense. As Hamlet learned, there's nothing contradictory about smiling, and smiling, and being a villain.
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged 1 Corinthians 13, bible study, Donald Trump, Friedrich Nietzsche, neoliberalism, Oprah Winfrey, philanthropy, pure ideology, rich fucks, the truth
Cry rape
Posted by Jason on December 20, 2017
Now would appear to be the opportune moment to discuss the rape-specific aspect of the general euphemism treadmill phenomenon. This pretty much always happens but it's been especially difficult to avoid lately. Basically, rape-culture-related claims are always described as one level less severe than what they really are. Rape gets euphemised as sexual assault, assault becomes harassment, harassment becomes "inappropriate misconduct" or some shit, and everything else basically falls off the map.
There are a few reasons why this is more than typical bourgeois overpoliteness. The first is the general instinct to soften claims against powerful people. It's not exactly news that society is built around flattering the prejudices of elites, but there's an ideological tilt to it as well: pretty much everyone gives benefit of the doubt in proportion to how powerful the target already is. Naturally, this is backwards. Claims against powerful people are automatically going to be downplayed simply by virtue of that fact; that's pretty much what being powerful means. So it's much safer to err on the side of viciousness, since there's basically no chance a powerful person is ever going to face consequences that are too severe relative to their behavior (especially since they should all just be killed a priori). For example, the Iraq War is usually described as a "mistake" or "quagmire" or something along those lines, when the truth is that even "catastrophe" is far too genteel – what it actually was, and still is, is a war crime. People have literally been executed for less. But calling it a war crime isn't going to bring Bush any closer to a guillotine, so if anything the correct move is to overstate the case just to push the envelope further in that direction (assuming there's actually a way to overstate "war of aggression"). Being skittish about this completely defeats the purpose of bringing up the issue in the first place. Just throw the punch.
But this type of euphemism also plays an important role in rape culture specifically. One of the key aspects of rape culture is an implicit denial of not just the severity of particular cases of abuse, but of sexual violence as a concept. People sometimes like to say that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person, but once the issue actually comes up it's clear that they don't really believe it. Typical excuses are frequently things like "she was being a tease" or "he's a guy, he couldn't help himself" or "what did she expect, doing <insert literally any action>", and in cases of obvious guilt the lines become things like "she was acting friendly with him afterwards, so it couldn't have been that bad" or "it's not worth ruining his life over." What's notable about these arguments is not just that they're always bullshit, but that they're extremely weak. Swap murder in for rape and even vaguely implying any of these things would make you look like a straight up sociopath. After all, if someone has an "instinctive desire" to say, kill people and eat them, and if the victim of such a person "brought it on themselves" by acting carelessly, we don't consider that to be any kind of excuse – if anything it just makes the person even more condemnable. In fact, these claims are so weak that they are only comprehensible at all if you are operating under the assumption that rape is nothing more than a minor inconvenience. Even things like theft and adultery that are genuinely several orders of magnitude less harmful than rape don't elicit these kinds of responses. We don't always think they're that big of a deal, but we address them with an appropriate level of seriousness.
So one of the functions of euphemisation is to uphold this order of values. This begins with the false distinction between "violent rape" (or, in Whoopi Goldberg's famously idiotic formulation, "rape-rape") and "date rape." Since the entire thing about rape is that it's physical coercion, a lack of injury doesn't indicate a "less severe" type of rape any more than asphyxiation or poisoning are "less severe" types of murder. Rather, the fact that some rapes involve more bodily harm than others simply means that in those cases an additional crime is being committed – they're cases of rape and also battery or murder. Euphemising some rapes as "sexual assaults" is one of the ways that people convince themselves that a distinction exists, when it doesn't. From what I understand, Harvey Weinstein has been credibly accused of multiple counts of rape and attempted rape, so the term to use here is not "harasser" or "creep" or "asshole" or anything like that. Those things sound superficially condemnatory, but given the actual facts of the situation, they're just letting him off the hook. The correct term is "rapist."
Other distinctions do of course exist – the proper use of the term "sexual assault" is to indicate situations involving physical coercion but not intercourse. (There is some slipperiness here, but it's a direct result of the slipperiness in what counts as "sex" in general; the assault part is straightforward by comparison.) In fact, groping, which often gets glossed as "harassment," is actually worse than assault. Assault, legally, requires only a physical threat rather than actual contact – actual contact is called "battery," hence the term "assault and battery," because they're different things, but when you punch someone you're committing both of them. Groping is sexual battery. Louis C.K.'s actions – masturbating in front of people in situations they felt unable to exit due to intimidation – are correctly classified as sexual assault. Direct verbal intimidation – for example, walking up to someone on the street and telling them "what you'd like to do to them" – is not "creepy" but is in fact assault.
Continuing down the line, "harassment" means to impede someone by creating a hostile environment for them. For example, the extremely lame joke that that one Uber guy made during the Uber meeting about how Uber is totally going to start doing something about sexism was described as "sexist" and "inappropriate," but what it actually was was harassment. The attitude that it expresses stifles women's actions on the basis of their being women and creates an environment in which they cannot operate effectively. It wasn't "tone-deaf" or "out of place," it was actively harmful (or it would have been, had there been any non-extremely-rich women present).
It's important to insist on the correct terms not just for the sake of conceptual accuracy, but because without them, the real issue drops out of the picture. The issue is not about sex; sex in these cases is the means by which dominance is exercised. This obviously results in a unique set of dynamics – sex is uniquely suitable for exercising dominance due to the fact the we conceptualize ordinary sex as dominance in the first place – but getting rid of the sex doesn't get rid of the coercion. Precisely because the issue is not really about sex, men who "act appropriately" are nowhere near off the hook. Recognizing the conceptual gap between sex and dominance reveals the possibilities of being a filthy pervert who only gets off consensually, and also of being a prude whose ordinary non-sexual behavior oppresses women. The Mike Pence Strategy of not interacting with women in the first place is actually just as bad as the Harvey Weinstein Strategy of using women for your own gratification in the course of working on their careers, because both have the same practical effect of relegating women to second-class status and denying them access to power. (Honestly, while it's not for me to say, the Weinstein approach could be considered the preferable alternative, because someone like that might actually end up helping your career in the course of otherwise being a shitbag, whereas someone like Pence simply has no role for you other than "Mother".)
Thus, the net effect of this whole chain of expressions is to negate the part of each concept that relates to the actual problem. Rape folds into sex, assault folds into flirting, and harassment folds into jokes and banter, and in each case the true central dynamic – coercion and dominance – precipitates out of the solution. (By the way, there's still room for umbrella terms such as "abuse" or "violence," and in fact it's important to these terms when grouping together behaviors like Weinstein's and C.K.'s, so that you're accurately generalizing rather than conflating distinct behaviors.) The importance of defining deviance upward is not just not respond to the issue with the appropriate ardency, but to respond to the part of the issue that is the actual issue.
Doing this requires arguing in terms that the Keepers of the Norms will dismiss as "extremist" and "hysterical" and "shrill" and "intemperate" and I could literally go on all day with this, also you should probably notice how many gatekeeping terms are simultaneously sexist insults. While we do, at long last, have a culture that actually talks about abuse, this should provide no comfort. In fact, it introduces a significant new danger: the conversation about abuse is being conducted on patriarchal terms, with the implicit goal of channeling outrage and placating anxiety without actually changing anything. Seeing yourself acting in accord with rich fucks is the number one red flag that your tactics are counterproductive.
It is therefore critical to draw a distinction between extremism, which is potentially justified depending on how big the problem in question really is, and inaccuracy, which is never justified by any amount of good intentions. Centrist op-ed assholes fucking love to conflate these things, but they're entirely different. You can be a frothing ideologue while also being right, and you can be a polite even-hander who is wrong about literally everything. In the same sense, though, trying to overstate the issue as much as possible (such as if, hypothetically, you were trying to make yourself look good on some kind of public forum) is generally a good way to take a correct stance and make it wrong.
Specifically, current events have encouraged a number of people to back themselves into the following corner:
I really doubt you could find a lot of women outside of ethnic cleansing campaigns who would be willing to describe their life experiences in this way, and if we're talking about the experiences of successful women in Hollywood, which we mostly are right now, then this is downright farcical. (Also, acting all shocked and aghast about basic information that you didn't know because you've somehow failed to ever pick up a fucking book in your life while transparently begging for head-pats re: what a good sensitive boy you are is not an attractive look.) (Also, if you're a man and you believe this, you are the movie monster, so you're ethically obligated to kill yourself, which you aren't going to, so stop lying.)
The problem with this isn't that it's overwrought (although still stop it please), it's that it's a factually incorrect description of the situation. While all men are complicit in patriarchy by virtue of the fact that their gender allocates privileges to them without their consent (and this is actually bad for men in the long run, which is why patriarchy hurts men too), very few men are actual abusers. Rape rates along the line of one-in-four are occasionally cited as ridiculous overestimates, but what a number like that actually says is that the vast majority of women go their whole lives without being raped. And because predators are predators, they usually attack multiple victims, which means the number of male assailants is even lower than that. None of this makes the issue less serious – indeed, the fact that a tiny minority of abusers is able to define what gender means for an entire society is properly horrifying – but it does mean that the issue operates differently than a simplistic conception in which all men are constantly out to get all women (also, plenty of women are collaborators, which is one of the problems with "believing women"). Inaccuracy in the advocacy of a just cause harms that cause, and should therefore be considered just as dangerous as outright opposition. Once you've got the dynamics, right, though, you should address them in the most extreme terms that you possibly can. Being extreme when you're wrong makes your wrongness worse, but being extreme when you're right makes your rightness better. So, you should get things right, and you should be an extremist about them, in that order.
For example, one of the classic radical feminist arguments is that, because patriarchal society does not take consent seriously as a concept and instead assumes that male sexuality is inherently predatory, "rape" in patriarchal terms is simply sex that violates certain social norms. Thus, patriarchal ideology does not draw a real conceptual distinction between sex and rape, making it accurate to assert that, from the patriarchal point of view, "all sex is rape." (To be clear, since everyone constantly gets this backwards, it is sexists who believe this proposition, and feminists who reject it in favor of the proposition that men are people.) To insist on this interpretation of the situation while simultaneously insisting on the facts that few women experience rape and very few men are actual rapists (as opposed to unreflective rape-sympathizers) is to describe the true dynamics of the situation with maximum severity.
No matter what issue you're working on, you're eventually going to run into a "Rolling Stone campus rape article" situation that puts you on the wrong side of the consensus and threatens to discredit your approach. The correct response to these events is to ignore them – you shouldn't even try to argue against them, because even if you win, it doesn't actually help your case. That Rolling Stone article appropriately reflects on no one but the people who wrote and edited it, and the lie itself reflects on no one but the liar. The fact that one person lied and one magazine sucks provides zero evidence one way or the other about how rape operates in society. I mean, if you seriously thought that no women ever lied about rape, then yeah, that's news for you, but nobody's really operating under that assumption, and no similar belief is required for making sense of the issue. There's all kinds of fucked up people in the world, and getting hung up on the details of this or that case is exactly how you fail to understand anything. Narratives can be useful tools, but narrative cannot be allowed to supersede analysis. If your analysis is actually correct and not merely convenient, then it's correct even in the face of complicated real-world situations, and you should continue to advance it even as a response to those very situations. The correct response to a woman falsely crying rape is for women to continue to cry rape.
I'll close with a personal example. Back when I first started reading about feminism on the internet, I was briefly stymied by frequent use of the term "rape culture." I'd be reading an article and finding it persuasive, but that term always caused me to stop short, since it seemed so straightforwardly wrong. Rape is obviously officially proscribed by society, to the extent that you can ask pretty much anyone what the worst thing you can do to a person is and "rape" will almost always be right at the top of the list. So it seemed to clearly be "too much" to describe the problem as a pervasive cultural effect rather than specific areas that weren't being accounted for or taken seriously enough. But I kept running into the term, so I kept having to think about it, and eventually I realized where the gap in my understanding was. First, "rape" as a term does not have a necessary mapping onto a particular category of physical behavior (because no term does), which means that the things people officially proscribe are only a tiny subset of what sexual violence actually is. Shifting standards from a general sense of impropriety to a specific technical definition of violation changes which things count as rape, and a lot of the things that count under the latter standard end up being things which most people condone. Second, just because people say they're against rape doesn't mean they're going to do anything about it. (What cultural criticism does a lot of the time is just to get people to change the way they talk about things while continuing to take the same actions as they were before.) It's easy to talk big in the abstract, but when an actual person is being accused of something, interested parties tend to revert to denial and excuse-making. And these problems aren't personal idiosyncrasies, but rather general aspects of the way we define and discuss the issue as a society – they result in predictable behavior that has predictable effects. Ergo, rape culture.
In short, I learned something, and this only happened because the people I was reading were willing to describe the situation in extreme terms that were also accurate. If these writers had been describing the situation incorrectly, such as by saying that most men were rapists, I would have correctly concluded that they weren't worth paying attention to, and I wouldn't have learned anything. But if they had been accurate while also "to be fair"-ing themselves into oblivion, I would never have noticed that I was missing anything, and I would have considered myself enlightened without actually changing anything about my beliefs or behavior. Properly applied extremism is the thing that distinguishes empty talk from effectiveness.
If this really is a crisis, then it merits yelling loudly and unpleasantly enough to make people uncomfortable. Talking about "inappropriateness" or "misconduct" is not going to convince anyone of anything (because those terms are non-specific except for their built-in negative valence, they're incapable of telling anyone anything they don't already know). Correct analysis requires extremism, and actually doing something about it requires extreme actions. The best moderation can do is manage the danger, temporarily, until the day when it finally gets fed up with your bullshit and lunges.
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged category errors, extremism, feminism, harassment, Harvey Weinstein, Louis C.K., Mike Pence, rape, rape culture, sexual assault
Horsin' around
Hot take alert: Roy Moore pretending to ride a horse is in fact the most serious of all political issues. This is a serious argument which I am making seriously.
The first thing to consider is why a person would do such a thing in the first place, which is of course to cosplay as a cowboy. We've seen the same sort of thing with George W. Bush "clearing brush" or Donald Trump putting on a coal mining helmet. The political significance of these stunts is that they evoke a socially-understood image of rugged, individualist masculinity, the evocation of which acts as an argument for a particular value system. The thing is, though, if these people really did embody their stated values, there would be no need for stunts. In fact, if there existed anyone who embodied these types of values, that person would instead have risen to become the relevant candidate. The reason this never happens is that there exists no such person, which is because the set of values is question isn't real. It can't actually be instantiated, which is why it can't be rationally argued for, which is why it can only exist through theatrification.
So it's a form of lying, obviously, it's presenting the candidate as someone they're not, but it's more than that. It's mythologization as support for an incoherent system of values. The images of things like the "cowboy" and the "wild West" are forged copies of an original that never existed in the first place (one of those postmodern sociology nerds probably has a term for this, but I don't care enough to look it up). Moore's failure to actually ride his horse demonstrates this quite concisely. Horseback riding is a real skill, and horsemanship has a real history and real functions. Furthermore, cowboys were real people, and there really was a period of Western expansion and pioneering. But the image of the cowboy and the horse has no connection to any of this history. It merely appeals to people's unexamined instincts in favor of positive-valence concepts like "independence" and "manliness" and "nature." The thing is, you can make up a concept for anything, but reality is going to stay the same underneath it. The only way concepts are justified is through a connection to that underlying reality that helps people grasp it, like reins attached to a horse. When there is no such connection, evocation of the concept results only in noise, and attempts to act on it result in mere flailing, like an old man barely balancing on top of a presumably very annoyed horse.
Of course, since incoherent values by definition cannot exist, what actually happens when these people get elected is that they revert to their true values. Republicans' recent attempts at legislation bear this out. The first thing they tried to do was "repeal Obamacare," which was one of the false images they used to get elected. Since Obamacare is a regulations tweak and not actually its own distinct structure, there's no such thing as "repealing" it (because the policy has already changed the landscape of American healthcare, changing it back to what it was before would not in fact revert things to the same situation.) All you can do is change the regulations to something else, which is what the actual bill ended up being. But no one actually wants that; free-market zealots just want to slash spending on poor people, and everyone else wants a real healthcare system. The fact that Republicans almost passed a nonsense bill anyway shows how deeply they're trapped in their own image. When that failed, they moved on to their real priority of just giving money to rich people, which is not something that anyone voted for. Here, again, the constructed image of "resistance to big government" and "job creation" masks a real material policy of direct upward wealth transfer. And it's not just that the image disguises the real policy, but that, without the image, the policy could never have existed in the first place. The present instantiation of the Republican Party only exists as a vector for this image of "fiscal responsibility" and "traditional values," and the desires that constitute the source of that image are the real underlying problem.
Democrats have exactly the same problem, only their false image is one of "rational administration" and a "civic religion." If recent history has clarified anything at all, it is that the actions of elites have nothing to do with expertise or responsibility and everything to do with their own class-driven ideology. Indeed, there's no such thing as rationality in general; you have to make the decision as to what you actually want before rationality can help you get there. So again, this is a incoherent set of values, and what actually happens is, again, a reversion to the underlying dynamics. Privatization, imperialism, austerity, and wealth concentration all get framed as "smart solutions" when in fact they are nothing more than the blunt advancement of specific interests.
In order to prove that this is actually the most serious issue, I have to demonstrate that it's global warming in disguise, which it is. Capitalism justifies itself on the basis of the imagery of prosperity and growth. What it actually is, specifically, is a schema for distributing material resources. The resources themselves, including the technologies used to take advantage of them, are just things, we can make different decisions and they'll keep existing. So when a particular material circumstance comes up, such as the fact that continued use of our primary energy source will destroy the environment, we need to be able to adapt to that on a material basis. But the imagery of capitalism doesn't allow for this sort of decision-making; quite the contrary, it insists that the operation of capital is necessarily correct under all material conditions. In fact, it doesn't even allow for the possibility of anything other than automatic capitalist dynamics having any effect on the world; thus, anyone who believes this is incapable of penetrating through to reality (this one I actually know, it's what Marxists call "mystification"). So the response to global warming, even among right-minded liberals, is to invoke the imagery of "responsiblity" and "sustainability" without any reference to the actual material changes necessary to make those words mean something.
But remember, just "doing the math" is itself a false image, because the math follows from whatever your starting axioms were. You have to have your ideas in order before anything you do is going to make any sense. Otherwise you'll end up voting for a narcissistic billionaire out of concern for the working class, or voting for an elitist powermonger out of concern for social justice. So, in a rare and shocking turn of events, that pro-horse Twitter pile-on is actually the ideologically correct course of action. It's isn't enough to ignore the image in favor of the "real issues," because as long as you try to do that, the image retains its mystique. (Also, you can only argue in terms of images anyway, because language is an image.) It usually seems like the easiest thing to do in an argument is to accept your opponent's terms and simply show where they're mistaken. For example, if the Republicans are trying to "reform taxes" in order to "fix the defect," and their tax plan that adds a ton of money to the defect and doesn't actually simplify anything, then you can just point that out. But the reason this is the easiest argument is because it's the least effective. As long as you maintain a false image, the argument can end up going in any direction, because it isn't based on anything. You can lose because one of the words you picked makes a particular 4.7-second clip of your speech sound bad, and someone else can win by insisting that ignoring sexual abuse is the best way to protect women.
People sometimes say that humans are gods trapped in the bodies of apes, but it's actually the opposite: we're real physical beings bound in the invisible straitjacket of imagery. Representation is the only weapon we have, so correct representation is our only means of adherence to the truth. Ignoring that fact in favor of "facts" is its own form of false imagery. Reason is not self-evident, and the only way to manifest changes in the world is to both explore the territory and chart it out using a system and a legend that makes the map usable by other people. You have to learn how to ride a horse.
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged capitalism, global warming, ponies, pure ideology, Roy Moore, this is not a joke
Viva hypocrisy
The Harvey Weinstein revelations have provided political operatives with a golden opportunity to do their absolute favorite thing in the whole wide world: accuse other people of hypocrisy. Accusations of hypocrisy are basically the coin of the realm in political discussions, so this isn't exactly unexpected behavior. Given how impoverished such discussions almost always are, though, it's worth considering whether the concept possesses any real value.
The idea behind hypocrisy is that identifying a contradiction between a person's stated beliefs and evident actions demonstrates that the person does not actually believe what they say they believe. This is already a problem, because it means that the best we can get out of the concept is a one-time, surface-level, circumstantial criticism of a single person. It doesn't penetrate through to the part that matters. In the classic example of the anti-gay crusader who secretly fucks men, one might presume that the recognition that gay behavior is naturally occurring would serve as an argument against the underlying ideology. But of course this never happens; the underlying ideology is not simply "gay sex is bad," but is rather adherence to the entire patriarchal world order. If you believe that patriarchy is the correct way for the world to be, then the particular causes and details and distributions of gay behavior are of only instrumental importance. This is where "ex-gay" therapy comes from: the belief that, despite the state of the underlying reality, something must be done. This is the kind of response that hypocrisy actually generates, because hypocrisy does not target ideology.
It is inherent to the concept that hypocrisy is always an argument against a person and not against an idea. This is true at the most general level. Patriarchy supposedly requires exacting standards of behavior on the part of men. They're supposed to be the moral, honorable law-givers; that's why patriarchy is allegedly justified. But whenever a man sticks his dick somewhere he's not supposed to, it always ends up being framed as some woman's fault. The ideology endures the failures of its adherents.
Hypocrisy is different from incoherence. Hypocrisy is when an action you take conflicts with your stated values. Incoherence is when your stated values conflict with themselves. For example, if you complain about the Republicans obstructing Obama throughout his tenure and claim that they should have tried to compromise, but you also complain about people who try to compromise with Trump and claim that they should obstruct him instead, you're being incoherent (assuming you actually believe that and aren't just being tactically cynical). The problem with incoherence is that it's impossible for anyone to take your advice, because you're advocating two different incompatible courses of action in the same situation. When you state incoherent values, you're actually saying nothing. Thus, pointing this out to people has, potentially, the useful effect of forcing them to pick a real side.
Still, it would seem that hypocrisy retains the limited value of arguing against certain in-the-moment courses of action. You should be able to use it to either get a sincere person to change their behavior to be more in line with their beliefs, or to expose a cynical professor of righteous-sounding beliefs as a fraud. In practice, though, its signal-to-noise ratio is pretty shit, and there's probably an explanation for that.
The reason hypocrisy doesn't help to change people's behavior is that everyone is already trying to act out their values. That's what having values means: they're the things that you're trying to do. If someone's doing something that goes against their values, it's because they don't realize that it's doing that. So what's required here is a material explanation of how the relevant behavior counterindicates the relevant values. For example, if someone claims to be a feminist, but complains about women who act "slutty," it's probably because they've internalized ideas about women's sexuality being a source of weakness and frivolousness. In other words, they think they're helping, because they think women need to be less sexual in order for feminism to succeed. The truth, of course, is that the problem is not the particular types of sexual behavior that women engage in, but rather the idea that there is a "correct" type of behavior at all. Substituting one mandate for another continues to oppress women. While some behaviors are in fact immoral (anything that doesn't involve consent, obviously; also particular behaviors are potentially open to aesthetic rather than moral criticism, but that's a whole other topic), the mandating of specific behaviors for certain classes of people rather than the development of a general moral theory is in fact what oppression is. Calling the person a hypocrite, though, doesn't clarify any of this for them. You have to give them a real explanation.
As for discreditization, that doesn't have a great track record either. I'm getting pretty sick of the tendency to turn every political issue into a referendum on Donald Trump, but unfortunately that's the move here, because Trump is the biggest possible hypocrite. As you may have read on the internet somewhere, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt draws a technical distinction between lies and bullshit. The liar is someone who wants to convince you that a particular fact is not in fact a fact. A criminal trying to create an alibi wants you to believe that they were in a certain place at a certain time, even though they weren't; establishing that belief in contradiction to the facts is their goal. The bullshitter, however, doesn't care about the truth or falsity of the relevant facts in the first place; their goal is to use the appearance of facts to establish something else entirely. Our primary vector for bullshit is advertising. An ad will make a claim like "American Moms' #1 Choice" or something, which looks like a fact-based statement. Presumably there was some sort of survey of American moms and most of them chose the product in question. And the company may in fact have conducted such a survey and gotten such results, if only for the sake of legal plausibility, but conveying that factual information isn't the point. The point is simply to associate the product with positive-valence terms such as "America" and "Mom" and "#1" and "Choice." In other words, bullshit may very well be true, but it doesn't matter, because the intent of the statement is something else entirely.
So, Trump, who only understands the world in terms of marketing, will say whatever gets a positive response at the time, and will take whatever action seems like it will inflate his brand. Because of this, and because he has no other motivations, his stated beliefs and actions are entirely disconnected; he is a perfect hypocrite. The times when his actions and beliefs do align are mere coincidences; some of his beliefs may in fact be "true," but they're bullshit either way, because he doesn't believe them as facts, but rather as instrumental vectors for self-promotion. He never actually encountered evidence that his inauguration had the biggest crowd ever, that was just the thing he had to say in order to make himself seem more impressive (the fact that it had the opposite effect was lost on him, because, in addition to being full of shit, he's not very bright). Even if he really had had the biggest crowd, he still would have been bullshitting.
Now, some people have recognized this dynamic and been confused by it, because it seems to sort people into one of two camps. Either you're opposed to Trump's stated beliefs, in which case you oppose him, or you're in favor of his stated beliefs, in which case you should be opposed to his actions, because he's a hypocrite and is therefore betraying your beliefs, meaning you should oppose him. Thus, his thoroughgoing hypocrisy should prevent him from having any base at all. But the opposite is the case: Trump has an extremely strong base of support that is pretty much guaranteed to stick with him to the particularly bitter end. So this already completely discredits the concept of hypocrisy on an empirical level, because if it doesn't work in the most glaringly obvious case, it's clearly never going to work at all.
We can still figure out why this is, though. In the case of political support, stated beliefs are what matter. The government is big and complicated, so you can never assign simple blame for any particular failure. During Obama's term, liberals made excuses for everything he failed to do or did wrong, and conservatives are doing the same for Trump right now. This is actually reasonable behavior. The president's actual function is mostly "setting the agenda," and given the limited number of options, the only thing you can really do is support the person who's mostly somewhere in the vicinity of what you're after. Conservatives understand this perfectly well. As much as they like to grandstand about decorum and shit, they know that Trump's their boy. He's the one who's going to give them their judges and agency appointments. As long as it benefits them, they're going to keep supporting him until it becomes politically untenable. Among ordinary voters, it's the same thing: Trump is the only person even pretending to speak to their concerns, and he actually is sort of moving the general political agenda in their direction, and since that's all they're going to get, they're going to take it. This is hypocritical, but it's also just a basic utilitarian calculation, which is the only sensible way to approach electoral politics. (Of course, this is also why electoral politics are not worth spending much time on.)
What's actually wrong with both Obama and Trump is not the fact that they're hypocrites, it's the fact that they're liars. Obama ran as an anti-war candidate knowing full well that he was never going to oppose imperialism or indeed do anything at all about foreign policy other than formalize and normalize everything that he made it seem like he was criticizing Bush for. He played the role of racial redeemer without ever intending to do anything to help black people. He presented himself as a populist in public while specifically telling bankers that he was going to protect them from the people they fucked over. These are not instances of hypocrisy, they are instances of immoral belief. Calling these things "hypocrisy" lets Obama off the hook; it implies that nothing was really his fault, like he was just trying his best and if only he had more power and the opposition wasn't so mean he could have fixed everything. What actually went wrong with Obama's presidency was the fact that he holds beliefs that are actively harmful to humanity.
Trump is a somewhat different case; as mentioned, his claims don't generally rise to the point of qualifying as "lies." But there is one exception: the claim that he ever intended to act as a public servant at all. This was actually at the core of his campaign: he stated many times that he used to be a freewheeling capitalist, but now he was going to buckle down and serve the people. This, augmented of course by his unwavering allegiance to whiteness and masculinity, was the key to establishing in many people the perception that Trump was "on their side" and "the only one looking out for people like me." Calling Trump a "hypocrite" does not attack this perception. It reinforces it; it makes it sound like Trump is trying his best but being stifled, which is exactly the excuse that his supporters are currently making for him. Undoing this perception requires targeting not his stumbles and gaffes, but the true center of his image: the fact that he's a rich fuck. This is the relevant quality that ensures that he is never going to help anyone other than himself, but this cannot be seen by those operating under the notion that rich people are the "winners" of society, the ones who are the smartest and the most qualified. Hypocrisy keeps the dividing line in the same place, but attempts to position Trump on the wrong side of it. This can't work, due to the simple fact that Trump really is a rich fuck; he really is a representative of the upper class, even if they're all embarrassed by him. Turning people away from Trump requires redrawing the line where it really belongs. It requires, yes, class consciousness.
To address the specific recent issue, liberals are being accused of hypocrisy for acting all aghast about sexual assault while harboring people like Weinstein and Bill Clinton on their midst. It's true that liberals are in the wrong here: they're wrong to harbor predators, and they don't actually care about sexual assault like they say they do. But neither of these things is an example of hypocrisy. What's actually happening is that establishment liberals a) don't really want to end patriarchy and b) care more about schmoozing and power-grubbing than changing society in any case. It's not that there's a contradiction between their beliefs and actions, it's that their beliefs and actions are both morally wrong on their own terms. This line of analysis applies to basically any possible accusation of hypocrisy: the problem is never the contradiction; it's either that the beliefs are wrong or the actions are harmful, or both. Ignoring hypocrisy doesn't mean that things are "okay," it means the opposite. The things that are really wrong are the things that should really be argued against. If, hypothetically, someone who claimed to care about gay people were to pose with the people responsible for Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it would make sense to call them out on that. But the reason it makes sense is not because it's hypocritical. It's because whitewashing history prevents us from understanding why things are wrong and therefore from being able to do anything about it, because fetishization of trendy causes harms those causes, and because making nice with evil people normalizes evil.
There isn't actually anything wrong with liberals taking Weinstein's money. The whole rejecting-the-tainted-donation pageant is actually really fucking annoying. Money is fungible, you dumb fucks! That's like the entire point of the concept. There's no such thing as "blood money"; money doesn't change based on where it comes from. The money doesn't magically "corrupt" you due to some kind of phantom influence from its source. In fact, it's more virtuous to take bad money than it is to take good money. Bad people are probably going to use their money to do bad things, so taking that money and using it to do good things is doubly virtuous.1 Contrariwise, all those people donating $27 to Sanders' campaign probably needed that money.
There is, of course, a real problem with having rich patrons, but it has nothing to do with hypocrisy. The problem is that having rich patrons is bad regardless of what you believe. Republicans also have rich patrons, but even though they aren't hypocrites about this, because they believe that wealth itself has moral force, their situation is still just as bad. It's still causing bad things to happen. The real problem is that establishing long-term relationships with rich fucks and relying on them as sources of support naturally entails adopting their values as your own. When you start thinking of rich fucks as your "us," the question of "what's good for the country?" becomes "what's good for us rich fucks?" You start to see the world through their eyes, and to frame all problems in their terms. Hillary Clinton's "no quid pro quo" defense against bribery was actually accurate: quid pro quo is not how the influence of wealth works in the modern world. Clinton's problem wasn't the money, it was the fact that she really was "one of them." Her problem was that she wasn't a hypocrite. Besides, the correct solution here is publicly funded elections paid for by progressive taxation, in which case it would in fact be rich people paying for political campaigns.
The ironic thing about hypocrisy is that it's slung about like a vicious accusation, but it actually gives the target the maximum possible benefit of the doubt. Calling someone a hypocrite assumes that they're not a liar or a con artist; it assumes that their beliefs are true and they're making an honest attempt to live up to them, but that they just happen to be failing. Hypocrisy is always the weakest possible accusation you can make; there is always a better argument. Hypocrisy is like accusing a person of accidentally stubbing their toe, when the real problem is that they're busy stabbing someone.
But it's actually quite a bit worse than that, because there's a real, vile reason why accusations of hypocrisy are the most common form of political discourse. They're ubiquitous because they're counterproductive. Conservatives obviously can't argue against liberal sexism by being anti-sexist, because conservatives are also sexist. So, instead, they use accusations of hypocrisy to attack their enemies without actually engaging in any sort of discussion about ideas or behaviors. The goal is not to actually discuss sexual assault; in fact, it is to avoid discussing sexual assault in any real way. It is simply to take advantage of the opportunity to discredit one's enemies while ignoring the real issue altogether. In other words, it's bullshit. It pretends to be a political discussion, when it's really nothing more than tribalistic sniping and noise-generation.
For us ordinary citizens, the problem is even worse. As people without power, we have no options other than to engage with society as it exists. This means that we are all necessarily complicit in whatever evils we are trying to destroy, no matter what they are. You can't be against capitalism or sexism or racism without also engaging in capitalist and sexist and racist practices, because the entire thing about these things is that they're social systems. They're not mistakes that happen here and there, but are rather how the world we live in is constituted. So if non-hypocrisy is the condition for action, no action is possible. The concept of hypocrisy does not help us to distinguish between better and worse actions, because all actions are fatally contaminated in its eyes. The way to argue for or against actions is on the basis of material results, which can actually be analyzed rather than merely yelled about. This is the truly important reason we must jettison the concept of hypocrisy entirely. It forces us into a morass of fruitless defensiveness and scares us away from the real actions we're capable of taking. It smothers us in self-righteous snobbery and prevents us from making real, bold arguments – the kind that might actually change something. One of the few genuinely important, non-bullshit functions of talking about politics as ordinary citizens is to get people to take stronger stances. Debating the merits of this or that policy is completely irrelevant for most of us, since we have no control over which specific policies actually get implemented. What we do have a non-zero amount of control over are our values and priorities, and it's important to get these right.
This point might seem too simple to be worth making, but it is in fact the case that people use this line of attack all the time, against everything. If you use social media to criticize social media, you're a hypocrite. If you buy a shirt with an anti-capitalist slogan on it, you're a hypocrite. If you're an anarchist, anywhere, ever, you're a hypocrite. Again, there is potentially a real argument that can be made about the likely effects of certain actions; if there's a readily available alternative to a company that uses sweatshop labor, or an easy vegan substitute for a meat dish, it can be helpful to point those things out. But they still exist in context: all consumption supports the economy that relies on sweatshop labor, and all food is part of the production chain that tortures animals. This is the difference between sincere progressiveness and reactionary accusations of hypocrisy: one aims at the best that can be done in this world, the only place where things can happen, and one is simply a shouting-down of any possible action at all.
Also, global warming.2 We all believe that the planet should continue to exist, and we're all engaged in the behavior that's destroying it. We're all hypocrites. Like, seriously, we suck, okay? It's great if you're all self-actualized or whatever, except it's actually not, because the world's still being destroyed, which means you actualized yourself wrong (or at least prematurely). Quit trying to act cool.
These are the truly pernicious "purity politics." They are the ones that come from the amoral center, striking against any possible alternative to the world as it happens to exist at this particular moment. If the problem is hypocrisy, then the solution is to stop expressing political beliefs – or, more dishonestly, to claim "nuance" and accuse your opponents of being "purists." Hypocrisy motivates people to change in the wrong direction: away from proclaiming their values openly and honestly, and towards the most tepid and inoffensive actions. We want people to feel comfortable stating their beliefs as strongly as possible, because that's the only way we can have a real conversation, and we want people to act like they mean it, because that's the only way anything is ever going to change.
There is, then, a necessary solution, which is to be a hypocrite. You should say what you really believe and value, rather than saying that thing that makes you sound the most "reasonable." You should then try to figure out what actions will be the most effective at advancing those beliefs, rather than which actions will expose you to the least criticism. Given the current state of the world, doing this will cause various people to hate you for various reasons, and it will leave you open to accusations of hypocrisy. The correct response is to not care. If someone has a real argument against you, that's great, you should listen to them, but if it really is a real argument, hypocrisy won't enter into it. In a world of ersatz rationality, where human potential is locked down by false certainty, the recklessness of hypocrisy is our best weapon against the worst future. The only worthwhile political stance is to be a first-world anarchist.
(It's also a useful defense against taking yourself too seriously.)
Besides, it's obvious that none of the people making accusations of hypocrisy care when the same accusations are leveled at them. If you don't think accusations of hypocrisy are significant when they're directed at you, then accusing others of hypocrisy as though such claims were significant is itself hypocritical. That's not why it's wrong, though. It's wrong because it's useless either way.
So, yes, for the record, Lisa Simpson is a total moron in that one episode. ↩
I'm starting to feel like this phrase should be mandatory in any article about anything. ↩
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged Barack Obama, bullshit, Donald Trump, feminism, Harvey Weinstein, hypocrisy, purity of essence, rich fucks, sexual assault, this is not a joke
A critique of ponies
Posted by Jason on October 27, 2017
Ponies are apparently the major political issue of the current era. Some people think everyone should get a pony, others think that all ponies should be distributed exclusively to factory owners for the purpose of making glue, and still others think that ponies are nice in theory, but nobody should actually get to have a pony, because that would just be irresponsible. It's all very contentious.
The first thing that's strange here is that the meat of the pony is actually just the standard liberal-democratic agenda: healthcare, education, stimulus spending, and the rest of the welfare state. This is the normal stuff that liberals are supposed to be in favor of, so portraying it as magic beans is somewhat suspicious. The "free college" thing is an especially odd sticking point. We are constantly being told by mainstream politicians that education is the only viable path to the future and that anyone who doesn't retrain themselves to meet the demands of an increasingly automated economy is going to get flattened by the steamroller of progress. But when people respond by making the completely obvious follow-up demand that education and retraining actually be accessible, they're suddenly accused of pie-in-the-sky unicornism. The demand here isn't for "ponies" at all; the demand is simply for oatmeal. And, at the risk of beating a dead horse, this demand is being made in a world where some people own multiple mansions with private jets to fly between them at will, while others are being evicted from roach motels and literally starving to death. If this is what we're talking about when we talk about ponies, it's long past time for rich fucks to pony up.
But we shouldn't get complacent just because some people are being completely disingenuous. This is one gift horse that we really do need to look in the mouth. The facts of the matter are that America is a very rich country, and that it contains about 5% of the world's population. It's straightforwardly incoherent to rail against the 1% in the name of a guaranteed middle-class existence for all Americans, because middle-class America is the 1% of the global economy. I'm not saying that you're only allowed to care about the worst things. Anything that's bad merits opposition and anything that's wrong merits righting. Given that we can't transform the economy overnight, there's nothing particularly immoral about enjoying a reasonable standard of living in America.
And it's really bizarre and honestly very upsetting that we can't actually talk about this. Everything is still being framed in terms of what's good for "the economy" rather than what actually makes people's lives better. The recent increased focus on inequality has caused a lot of people to start making the argument that inequality is bad for the economy, that it's inefficient and decreases overall productivity. I'm sure this is true, but opposing inequality on this basis is an extremely terrible argument. When you do this, you're completely conceding the only part of the argument that matters: the assumption that overall economic growth is the only acceptable value, and that every policy has to be justified on this basis. The omnipresence of this argument is not mysterious: it's like that because it's what rich fucks want. Given that rich fucks are already on top of the economy, the only thing that can further benefit them is accelerated growth. There's only so much money you can steal from poor people, and most of it is already being stolen. So as long as the discourse remains constrained by this framework, not only ponies and oatmeal but even hay and salt licks are going to remain entirely out of our reach. The best we're going to get is gristle.
Once we decide to take this seriously, though, it becomes incumbent upon us to ensure that we're betting on the right horse. The thing is, America's world-historical prosperity is not a coincidence. There is a specific material reason that America possesses enough wealth to provide everything for all of its citizens, and that reason is called imperialism. The whole "two cars in every garage" thing is an ideal of very recent vintage: it's a direct consequence of America's global dominance following the devastation of the second World War. America has more resources than everyone else because America takes them from the rest of the world, by force.1 So while it might seem justified to simply make the internal claim that America's resources should be distributed more evenly, that claim rests upon the availability of those resources in the first place. In order to support such an arrangement, you're implicitly required to support the conditions that make it possible. This is why liberals are imperialists.
(Also, this is not a theoretical point. Bernie Sanders got some positive press recently for articulating a slightly less psychotic approach to foreign policy, but that approach is still fundamentally imperialist. For people who think that Sanders represents the "extreme left," anti-imperialism is literally an unthinkable position.)
So, in the final analysis, it is indeed the case that ponies are the ill-considered playthings of spoiled rich kids. In order to create a world that genuinely works for everybody, we have to focus on the basics. It is properly within the realm of human rights to insist that everyone should have a comfortable place to live and access to food and healthcare and maybe even internet-capable computers, but 70" TVs and new smartphones every year and overnight-shipped meal kits are things that we can only afford by offloading their real costs onto someone else. Like, the whole thing about the "information economy" or the "service economy" or whatever we're calling it now is that it assumes that the resource extraction and manufacturing are being done elsewhere. Someone has to actually build the automated service kiosks, you know. So if we have that type of economy, what we have is precisely a global 1%: we have shit countries doing the shit work and doughy Americans yelling at their robot butlers.
At the same time, though, people also shouldn't be obligated to constantly hustle in order to scrape together enough paychecks to survive, or spend eight years bullshitting for the sake of an official certification entitling them to an entry-level office job, or maintain an impeccably professional social media profile to prove right-thinking. Most of the "privileges" of our first-world society are actually shit deals. This is the truly pathetic thing about liberals: the unrealistic utopia they're trying to sell us isn't even any good. It's a lame horse. So we can not only fulfill our moral obligations by evening things out on a global scale, but also provide a preferable alternative to the sad future of austerity and apps by making an actual good deal: dignified living in exchange for civil responsibility. This is the real positive argument that we have at our disposal, and making it effectively requires us to dispense with fantasy and describe the world as it really can exist, and how we really can get there though a long, determined march over the dead bodies of billionaires. Rather than a pony, then, what we need is something more like a pack-bearing mule. It won't be any of the obvious choices on display; it'll be a hybrid creature, something that we wouldn't have expected to exist at all. I'll be slow, and it won't be pretty, but that's okay, because it won't be for show. For the first time in human history, it will be something that works.
As always, this brings us to the real problem, which is, as always, global warming. American-style outsized resource utilization is not just unfair, it's literally destroying the world. This is also not a coincidence. The thing about fossil fuels is that they provide an immense amount of energy in a very small and effective package. Their existence is a great boon for humanity: everything about our modern lifestyles relies on the unprecedented amount of energy generation that they afford us. The problem is that, due to the aforementioned social arrangements, this boon has been largely squandered. We've used it to drive an unhealthy amount of growth solely for the sake of rich fucks' desires for ego gratification and escapism. A responsible long-term plan would have used this energy to develop a global infrastructure for keeping everyone fed and healthy and then worked on converting that infrastructure into a more2 sustainable form. This is the kind of bootstrapping that actually works. If we had ever tried to do that, we'd already be done. Again, that's what's so frustrating and sad and insane about this whole arrangement. There never should have been a problem in the first place, but we went to the maximum amount of effort in order to create one, and we did it for no reason. We weren't outmatched or conned; we didn't make mistakes or fail to figure anything out. The reason the planet is burning is simply that we've shoved it into an oven.
As mentioned, the focus right now is on finding "solutions" to "problems" within the existing liberal-capitalist framework, and global warming is the strongest and most important example of why this won't work. I'll do you a favor and spare you the full rehashing, but the basic problem is that, while increasing the use of renewables is nice, what we're ultimately going to have to do is stop using fossil fuels entirely, which is incompatible with a growth-based capitalist framework at all, let alone with the maintenance (and, indeed, promotion) of billionaire lifestyles. Global warming is just plain not a solvable problem within our current societal configuration. The society in which it is solvable has not yet been instantiated, and doing so will require destruction as much as creation. We are facing an Old Testament-level threat, and we require an Old Testament-style solution. We don't need a pony here so much as we need four horsemen.3
This is extraordinarily important to keep in mind in the current context of "the resistance." The particular grotesquenesses of the immediate present are strongly motivating a desire to get things "back to normal," and even those attempting to look forward – the people who are increasingly being called "the left" – are mostly doing so within the parameters of the not-quite-discredited liberal-capitalist consensus (the fact that "socialism" now means "going halfway back to the New Deal era" tells you everything you need to know here). Certainly, some of the "norms" being "eroded" are in fact real accomplishments that we need to preserve, but a norm isn't a good thing just because its a norm. The more important concern here is that our world was birthed wrong in the first place, resulting in many more and more important norms that are not mere politenesses but are in fact the carrots and sticks spurring us on down our current path to destruction. Most of these are still being upheld, and any real future requires their eradication. If humanity is to have any hope of tightening the widening gyre, the center must not hold.
Nowadays this is generally indirect, modern imperialism is less about pillaging and slave labor and more about opening up markets, but the basic idea is the same, and economic force is still force. Also we still have slave labor in America through the prison system, so there's that too. ↩
Nothing is literally sustainable. Ozymandias, entropy, etc. ↩
Global warming is the third horseman, by the way. The first is conquest, a.k.a imperialism. The second is war, which is the state of nature that the world descends into when imperialism inevitably fails (for something that's supposedly about spreading civilization, it's a notably uncivilized endeavor). The third is famine, or more broadly resource depletion, which is what's going to happen when we lose half of our agricultural yields, all of our port cities, and exist at the mercy of constant natural disasters. So, y'know, we're getting there. The fourth is what happens after that. ↩
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged capitalism, global warming, imperialism, ponies, rich fucks, this is not a joke, this is what liberals actually believe
Endless talk
Posted by Jason on September 29, 2017
Given recent developments in Nazis, this is probably a good time for some real talk on the whole free speech thing. While this topic has been discussed to death, it's attracted a truly staggering amount of dullardry in the process, so I feel the need for boring philosophical clarity.
First, there is no such position as free speech absolutism. You cannot begin understanding the issue until you understand this. We like to talk about "rights" as though they are unlimited, but that's not how the concept works. In terms of moral philosophy, a right is something that you don't violate for utilitarian purposes. There are times when killing someone might actually result in the best overall outcome, but you still don't kill people in those cases, because you have the right not to be killed.1 But it's for this same reason that you can and indeed have to violate rights in order to preserve other rights. In the real world, rights conflict, so you can't always preserve all of them.2 This isn't a novel interpretation, it's just how rights work. Even Second Amendment zealots don't argue that individuals ought to be able to own and operate intercontinental ballistic missiles.
When it comes to speech, there are already plenty of laws on the books restricting it on this basis. Ordering an assassination is not "protected speech," because it violates the target's right to life. And the restrictions aren't only for extreme cases; lots of practical, everyday speech acts are prohibited in the same way. Credible death threats are illegal because they violate the target's right to basic security. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is illegal because it causes direct physical harm. Libel is illegal because you have the right not to suffer harmful consequences based on falsehoods (of course, you do not have the right to avoid the consequences of truths, which is why only falsehoods qualify as libel. In other words, this is a specific instance of the right to due process). There's even a legal category that's actually called "fighting words," referring to speech that directly precipitates harm or illegal action. The decision referenced in that link clearly conveys the balance of interests required in making these determinations:
It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Furthermore, speech not only conflicts with other rights, it also conflicts with itself. One of the problems with libel is that preemptive damage to the target's reputation prevents them from being able to correct the record – one person's speech restricts another's. Similarly, highly provocative speech can prevent a discussion from taking place, and certain types of intellectual climates make certain ideas inadmissible. You can't respond to these types of situations simply by picking the side with "more speech." There can be valid speech on both sides, and you have to decide which side you value more.
In a broader and more important sense, this is the real problem with hate speech. It's not that it hurts people's feelings or even that it's "harmful" in general. It's okay and frequently desirable for harmful things to happen. Racists get their feelings hurt when people call them racists, but this is a good thing, because it's correct for your feelings to hurt when people call you out for doing bad things. The problem is that hate speech is detrimental to overall human expression.3 Arguing that black people are inferior to white people necessarily reduces their effective ability to speak. The argument itself does this, even before anyone accepts it, because refuting the argument becomes a prerequisite to listening to black people. If you spend all you time arguing about whether black people's ideas deserve to be taken seriously, you spend none of your time actually taking black people's ideas seriously. This is exactly why the affected groups often try to shut these discussions down: because they have to, or they will never be able to say anything else.
So if you call yourself a "free speech absolutist" and refuse to make any determinations on the issue, all you're actually doing is allowing existing forces to make those determinations on their own. The real world has a variety of conditions and constraints that allow certain types of expression to happen and disallow others, and a "hands off" approach means tacit agreement with the results. So you are not in fact an "absolutist" at all, you're just a naive censor.
This also means that "maximizing speech" (as in "the solution to bad speech is more speech") is not a coherent goal, because some ideas crowd out others. The idea that black people are inferior to white people and the idea that black people should be equal participants in society cannot just float around abstractly without affecting each other. They conflict on the basis of their inherent content. To the extent that one of those ideas is expressed more, the other is expressed less.
This is compounded by the fact that there is a limit on how much speech can actually exist. We are finite beings living in a finite world, so we can never inhabit a situation in which we are expressing and considering "all" ideas. (When someone says "all options are on the table," they really just mean that an option that would make them look bad if they directly argued for it is in fact being argued for.) The space of potential ideas is infinite, and choosing which are worthy of consideration is a large portion of what it means to be an intelligent lifeform. Not all expression is of equal quality. Putting forth an argument that has been widely rebutted is inferior to a new version of the same argument that takes the rebuttals into account, or to an entirely new argument. Substituting one of the latter options for the former increases overall quality of expression. The way that the 24-hour news cycle effectively forces some new thing to become the Most Important Thing every day is anti-free-speech behavior, because it restricts the ability to distinguish between levels of real importance. Furthermore, context matters. It matters that the New York Times has completely godawful op-ed columnists because lots and lots of people read the New York Times and take it seriously just because it's the New York Times. The fact that better ideas are free to exist elsewhere doesn't cancel this out. Ideas being expressed in more prominent venues matter more.
I'm being pedantic; this is really all just the basic stuff we do when we communicate: we try to understand things and make useful contributions to the discussion and say things that are right instead of wrong. We try to get useful ideas expressed in the places where people can actually hear them. We criticize the elevation of trash, not because we think people don't know better, but because there are better uses of our limited resources.
Obviously, we do not want to respond to this situation by censoring any idea that someone deems "not good enough." But that's exactly the point: the only question here is how we're going to manage speech. In terms of what we want to accomplish, increasing the overall quality of ideas expressed is the only thing that makes sense. We don't want a "robust discussion" about fascism, we want a discussion where nobody is arguing for fascism.
There is, of course, a specific meaning to the term "free speech," which is that the government should not be able to restrict expression on the basis of its content. But this is still not an absolute condition. Here's Ludwig von Mises being completely wrong about this:
But whoever is ready to grant to the government this power would be inconsistent if he objected to the demand to submit the statements of churches and sects to the same examination. Freedom is indivisible. As soon as one starts to restrict it, one enters upon a decline on which it is difficult to stop. If one assigns to the government the task of making truth prevail in the advertising of perfumes and tooth paste, one cannot contest it the right to look after truth in the more important matters of religion, philosophy, and social ideology.
Of course you can. I think it's pretty obvious that the slope between banning poisonous toothpaste and banning political opinions is not particularly slippery. There are specific reasons why the government is (potentially) competent at the former but not the latter. First, the government has an obvious bias regarding which political ideas get expressed, which makes it an incompetent judge of which ideas deserve suppression. As the entity that manages power distribution, the government has the strongest possible vested interest in regulating ideas. But the government is just as capable as any other entity of running tests to determine what's poisonous, and it has no vested interest in the results4. So the problem here has nothing to do with "big government," it's simply a matter of competent discrimination.
Second, because the government is the entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, ideas prohibited by the government are absolutely prohibited. It's okay to ban one brand of toothpaste, because that's not a significant restriction on anyone's choices (if the toothpaste really is significantly harmful, it's actually an enhancement of people choices, because it prevents them from accidentally making a decision they never would have made based on real information). But ideas are more complicated. Even an obviously bad idea might have positive effects through clarifying arguments or inspiring counterpoints. So, unlike being poisoned, which is something you never want, bad ideas are not absolute negatives. You might want to restrict them in particular times and at particular places, but you don't want them absolutely restricted. Since people obviously disagree about ideas, discrimination is properly applied on the level of voluntary groups – that is, organizations can decide individually which ideas are worthwhile for them and which are not.5 And while there are in fact ideas that deserve complete eradication (again, fascism), this has to be done organically. Ideas are not magic; they have physical causes. If you try to banish an idea without addressing why it came about in the first place, it's inevitably going to regenerate at some point. That's exactly what's happening right now: everyone thought we had gotten over fascism, when in reality all we had done was to shove it into the category of "Bad Things" without doing anything about its real causes. But once you've processed an idea and moved into a new situation where it no longer applies, artificially preserving it restricts speech. It prevents you from moving on to the next stage of discussion.
So these are the two actual criteria that matter for assessing speech restrictions. The first is accurate judgment: whether the idea is being restricted on its own merits or out of other motivations such as prejudice or political interest. The second is breadth: whether the restriction is being applied at the correct level. It's fine for one explicitly capitalist magazine to disallow socialist opinions, because that's not what anyone reading it is there for. It's not okay for a larger entity to disallow the creation of any other types of magazines. But banning death threats throughout all of society is the correct level of applicability for that case, because death threats affect all humans.
Understanding the issue in terms of these criteria shifts the terrain of the debate considerably. The main point here is that speech restrictions have to be considered in context and not as absolutes, so I'm not going to try to formulate any kind of rules about what's good and what's bad. But since this issue has attracted such an unfortunate amount of misdirected chatter, I will work through a few examples to show how this works.
An extremely important story that has not received nearly enough attention is a recent change Google made to its search algorithm to promote more "authoritative" results. Naturally, this resulted in traffic drops for a variety of "alternative" news sources. This isn't the kind of thing that normally gets discussed as a free speech violation. After all, none of the affected websites have actually been "censored," and there are other search engines available. But the result is the same, because it fails both criteria. It's improper discrimination because it's intended to improve the "quality" of results, but all it actually does is impose a particular political viewpoint on them, based on Google's collective internal assumption as to what counts as "fake news." And it's also overly broad, because it affects everyone who goes looking for information on any topic, regardless of what their individual desires are. If you're trying to find alternative news sources, this change will prevent you from doing so, and there's no way to opt out of it. And of course Google doesn't tell you how it's filtering its results, and it's constantly changing things without telling anyone, so you don't know whether there really is something else out there or not. Furthermore, Google is entrenched enough that it's more accurate than not to say that this affects "everybody," even though there are technically alternatives available. In other words, Google users constitute an involuntary group that has not consented to this restriction. If this were just one explicit, publicly understood option among many – if, say, it were one search engine marketing itself as an "authoritative news source" or something – then there wouldn't be a breadth problem. The people who chose to use it would know what they were getting.
This applies just as much to the general movement to get social media companies to "do something" about "fake news." Again, this isn't an absolute condition; there's no such thing as a "neutral" platform. But the criteria still apply. Scams and death threats are examples of things that social media companies can (potentially) accurately identify and which merit prohibition. Banning Twitter users who make "jokes" about putting people into ovens is more free-speech-friendly than not doing so. People who pull that shit are specifically trying to intimidate others out of speaking. And this does actually bleed into politics somewhat: if your ideas cannot be expressed without direct dehumanization and death threats, then it is correct for them to be suppressed. When it comes to actually discriminating based on ideology, though, giving Facebook the ability to decide which ideas are worthy of expression means conducting public discourse from inside Mark Zuckerberg's head, which is clearly the worst possible outcome.
As mentioned, the big issue is Nazis, and unfortunately there isn't a trivial solution here. If we're talking specifically about literal Nazis, then censorship is probably fine. We can be as certain as we are of anything that Nazism is not a viable political option, and removing it from the public discourse doesn't prevent people from cosplaying as Nazis on their own time. But of course there is no actual Nazi Party anymore; the entire issue is identifying which ideologies are really dangerous. Trump was widely condemned as a white supremacist for equivocating after Charlottesville, but all the mainstream Republicans who denounced him are also white supremacists. In fact, they're more effective white supremacists, because, unlike Trump, they're actually capable of closing deals. Declaring only overt Nazism beyond the pale sets the paling far too far to the right.
The thing that's being called the "alt-right" is not one thing. It's an umbrella term that covers a lot of different ideas and reactions. We can assume they're all wrong, but even then, they've come up for real reasons, in response to real problems. Trying to sweep this stuff under the rug is exactly how you get surprised by someone like Trump. Dealing with these problems for real requires creating a society that fixes them, and developing that blueprint requires engaging with the underlying ideas. Expecting the government to take care of the bad guys is not going to accomplish this. In fact, it's the opposite: the government is on the side of the fascists more than it is on yours.
Importantly, though, "engaging" here does not mean restricting yourself to the realm of cable-friendly "rational debate." It means having a real fight. Making group efforts to deny fascists the use of social resources meets both free speech criteria. Such efforts can only come to fruition when there is widespread, non-idiosyncratic agreement as to what's going on, and shutting down individual gatherings is not equivalent to censorship. People making the collective decision to disallow certain types of speech from the platforms over which they have influence is pro-free-speech activity, because it allows better ideas (by the standards of the involved parties) to be expressed. So shutting down fascists is indeed the right thing to do, but it only works if you do it yourself. Anyone who claims to be doing it for you is actually just fattening you up so they can eat you.
Also, violence is not a unique problem. The problem with violence is simply that it violates the criteria: it discriminates on the basis of who's better at fighting rather than which ideas are better, and it completely prohibits expression rather than singling out particular ideas. But in situations where this isn't the case, or where violence is already being applied, there's no case for rejecting violence as such. Like, it's pretty ridiculous to get all huffy about individual acts of defensive violence when they only stand out because you're living in a cocoon created by the greatest purveyor of offensive violence in world history. Violence is generally a bad thing, but, given the current situation, a lot of the time it's less bad than doing nothing.
(By the way, antifa has nothing to do with any of this, because they don't start shit. As Cornel West and others have testified, their whole thing is defending people against fascist violence. From what I understand, they will actually escort neo-Nazis out of danger in order to defuse violent situations. Fretting about "violence" here, especially in the face of fascists who come armed to what they intend to be public confrontations, is nothing but typical anti-leftist bogeymanning.)
On a lighter note, the whole thing about university speakers being protested is a perfect example of something that is not a real problem. First, such protests can only happen through mass mobilization on the part of the affected constituency, which is proper discrimination. Second, being denied a speaking slot at a university has basically no other repercussions. Your ideas are still out there for people to engage with. Even the specific students at that university can look them up if they want to. In fact, the direction of suppression here is exactly the opposite of how it's normally portrayed. It is the granting of the speaking slot in the first place that is suppressive behavior. If a group of college students wants to create a discursive climate in which trans people are not bullied, giving Milo Yanniopolis a speaking slot censors that political opinion.
To be honest, none of this is particularly relevant. Invoking "free speech" is almost always a dodge away from discussing actual political issues. It's a way for people who don't have the guts to take a meaningful stand to pretend like they're principled when they really just want to avoid the discomfort of genuine values conflicts. The real problem is the fact that it works. As long as "free speech" is thought to be at issue, everyone has to spend all their time preemptively defending themselves instead of making real arguments. In other words, talking about free speech is a means of suppressing speech.
You might want to keep in mind that this is all highly theoretical, because of course the government kills people and commits other rights violations for utilitarian reasons all the time, so talking about any kind of "pure" standard here is fantasyland from the getgo. ↩
This applies broadly. If you try to take just one right and treat it as absolute, you run into internal contradictions. For example, treating the right to life as absolute and sacrificing everything else to it leads to the Repugnant Conclusion: valuing only life destroys the things that make life valuable in the first place. ↩
So, if you hadn't noticed, "hate speech" is a complete misnomer. Hatefulness has nothing to do with anything. The problem is with dehumanizing speech. This is actually why a lot of people get confused: they think they're looking for "hate," so when they don't see it, they assume there's no problem. Having a level of conceptual organization beyond "bad things are bad" matters. ↩
There can, of course, be other interests at work: the relevant agency might be in the pocket of Big Toothpaste (this is called "regulatory capture"), or the government might want to direct poisoning at a specific undesirable community (this is called "environmental racism"). But these aren't arguments against regulation, they're arguments for good regulation. ↩
This doesn't work for involuntary groups. You can't argue both that people need to work to eat and that their employers should be able to restrict their political opinions, unless you're willing to accept that people with the wrong kind of ideas ought to be murdered. Either work is involuntary and employment is protected, or working is not a prerequisite for staying alive and associations can be fully voluntary. ↩
Leave a comment Posted in Politics Tagged fascism, free speech, know your rights, tech assholes, violence