Today I had quite the misadventure with my new phone. That's unfortunate, since it was in fact, my first day with my new phone. In trying to transfer my service from one phone to the other, I was left with neither phone working.
That's extra unfortunate, because it had seemed like such a modern process up until that point. I ordered the phone and the plan online, it was delivered quickly, and I went back online to activate it. Having to go to the store and ask questions seemed quite archaic.
The illusion of efficiency was further punctured when I got to the store and had to go through a series of have-you-tried-this and what-happened-when-you-did-this. To quote Dark Helmet, "Even in the future nothing works!"
And then the final revelation that we still live in backwards times: the phone started working as soon as it rebooted, with nothing else having changed. Yes, that remains the number-one way of fixing things. That, and take it apart and put it back together again. And occasionally, just hit it.
I'm not sure what paradigm I'd expect would be the universal way of repairing things in the future. In Star Trek, it's to wave a tricorder at it while saying something incomprehensible. But who knows, maybe the only thing the tricorder does is turn things off and on again.
So I'm wondering how many other things can be fixed by turning them off and on. Could the economy work that way? Maybe that's why they promote Buy Nothing Day. Or we could fix the U.S. by turning it off. Maybe that's what Trump has intended all along. But the big test is people who survive being clinically dead. They've actually been turned off and on, so I'm assuming that all their problems disappear.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Deriving Functions
Apple has an interesting new innovation. You may have missed it because we were all separated distracted by the collapse of western civilization. But their new MacBook Pro has replaced the function keys with a "Touch Bar" which is a small touch-sensitive screen. The idea is that a program can present customized buttons, or entirely different controls. The initial deliberation showed a video-editing program that let you scroll up different parts of the of the timeline with the Touch Bar.
The reaction seemed to be pretty negative. Though I thought it was a good idea. Let's face it: function keys kind of suck. They were okay in the pre-GUI days when they're really was no better way to track reach large numbers of features. But now that we have drop-down menus, toolbars, context menus, tool-tips, etc, there really is no need for a row of unlabeled buttons.
To make matters worse, computer makers have usurped the function keys to handle things like volume control. Now I can't remember whether my F5 is going to save or turn down the screen brightness. I actually find myself missing the WordPerfect function key template.
But a touch screen would be ideal here. Their disadvantage is that the lack of physical keys mean that using them at speed is difficult (as anyone counting typos on this blog will know.) Inevitably, a company led by a hunt-and-peck typist will try marketing an all-touchscreen keynotes, and then wonder why it flops.
But no one needs to touch type on the function keys, so it doesn't really mayer if you have to look down at them. And if you're going to look down before you press the button, you might as we get the confirmation that it does what you think it does.
What they need to do now is start replacing all of the less-used keys. A lot of them are just a technological appendix. Which leads to...
But to me the biggest proof that the Touch Bar is here to stay is that people immediately started don't weird things with it. You can play the original Doom on it, or have a KITT style radar blip. I'm sure they can come up with plenty more ideas. Maybe make it look like a WordPerfect template.
The reaction seemed to be pretty negative. Though I thought it was a good idea. Let's face it: function keys kind of suck. They were okay in the pre-GUI days when they're really was no better way to track reach large numbers of features. But now that we have drop-down menus, toolbars, context menus, tool-tips, etc, there really is no need for a row of unlabeled buttons.
To make matters worse, computer makers have usurped the function keys to handle things like volume control. Now I can't remember whether my F5 is going to save or turn down the screen brightness. I actually find myself missing the WordPerfect function key template.
But a touch screen would be ideal here. Their disadvantage is that the lack of physical keys mean that using them at speed is difficult (as anyone counting typos on this blog will know.) Inevitably, a company led by a hunt-and-peck typist will try marketing an all-touchscreen keynotes, and then wonder why it flops.
But no one needs to touch type on the function keys, so it doesn't really mayer if you have to look down at them. And if you're going to look down before you press the button, you might as we get the confirmation that it does what you think it does.
What they need to do now is start replacing all of the less-used keys. A lot of them are just a technological appendix. Which leads to...
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #35
Computer keyboards still have a SysReq key. And no one has figured out what it's for.But to me the biggest proof that the Touch Bar is here to stay is that people immediately started don't weird things with it. You can play the original Doom on it, or have a KITT style radar blip. I'm sure they can come up with plenty more ideas. Maybe make it look like a WordPerfect template.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Persuasion
This summer, I wrote a post about how Prime Minister Trudeau went to the Toronto Pride Parade and didn't end his career. In particular, I showed a photo of him at the parade, and marvelled that we've come far enough as a society that it didn't end his career.
Then I pointed out that inevitably someone would try using it against them, and this would blow up in their face. And sure enough, this week Facebook showed me this:
Of course, Bill C-16 isn't really the newspeak law they're making it out to be. You won't be send to jail for failing to memorize your alternate pronouns, and men still aren't allowed to enjoy the lush Victorian decor of public ladies' rooms.
I didn't really think the photo would be used by some conservative news outlet who fell victim to a massive breakdown in targeted advertising. I was picturing it being one of the Conservative leadership candidates, presumably Kellie "Values Screening" Leitch. But perhaps we should wait until the next election to see how far into the Trump playbook Canadian politicians are willing to go.
Then I pointed out that inevitably someone would try using it against them, and this would blow up in their face. And sure enough, this week Facebook showed me this:
Of course, Bill C-16 isn't really the newspeak law they're making it out to be. You won't be send to jail for failing to memorize your alternate pronouns, and men still aren't allowed to enjoy the lush Victorian decor of public ladies' rooms.
I didn't really think the photo would be used by some conservative news outlet who fell victim to a massive breakdown in targeted advertising. I was picturing it being one of the Conservative leadership candidates, presumably Kellie "Values Screening" Leitch. But perhaps we should wait until the next election to see how far into the Trump playbook Canadian politicians are willing to go.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Now I Wonder How Whatsername Has Been
After today was mostly over, I discovered that it was National Unfriend Day. As you can guess, it's a day in which you are encouraged to unfriend people on social media, particularly Facebook. Apparently this was started by Jimmy Kimmel. (Though the story about it on the evening news didn't mention that part, so as a viral marketing tool, it didn't work that well.) According to the Facebook page, you should use the following criteria:
Sure, there are plenty of practical concerns about how many friends you have. You can only keep up with so many people, you don't want to share your personal information with someone you just met, and some people post way too much stuff. Or they post things that make you angry, which is another odd thing about this day: why have Unfriend Day right after American election day? We've just gone through months of unfriending, with no promotion needed.
Beyond those problems, I don't see why there's a problem with having too many friends. Unfriend Day's page says it's to "protect the sacred nature of friendship," but I don't think that's a problem. My close friendships are not harmed just because my friend is also friends with someone they met at night school eight years ago, or the woman in HR he can't remember the last name of.
I'm not just targeting Kimmel here: Others have tried to put down social media friends over the years, portraying them as meaningless things that are little more than acquaintances. I've always thought that feeling was misguided; there's a lot to be said for those lighter friendships. I'm not pretending that they are the equivalent of the people you share a close connection with. But they are a big part of your life. After all, since those relationships include most of your co-workers, and many people you socialize with, you probably spend half your waking hours with them. They have a big impact on whether you gave good days or bad, and a person who has a positive effect on you can make a big difference in your life.
And the fact is, you don't know when you may have to depend on a sort-of friend. You don't know when misfortune may strike, and you might need to rely on your acquaintances. You may find that when push comes to shove, they care more than you expected. Maybe they'll even loan you fifty dollars.
So don't unfriend your less-close friends. Instead, be glad that we have technology to maintain connections with so many people. And you could reflect on how so many people have affected your life. Or at least, wonder why anyone would look at this world and decide the problem is that there are too many friends.
- If you wouldn’t loan someone 50 dollars, unfriend them.
- If you wouldn’t invite them to your birthday party, unfriend them.
- If you wouldn’t cry if they got hit by a bus, unfriend them.
Sure, there are plenty of practical concerns about how many friends you have. You can only keep up with so many people, you don't want to share your personal information with someone you just met, and some people post way too much stuff. Or they post things that make you angry, which is another odd thing about this day: why have Unfriend Day right after American election day? We've just gone through months of unfriending, with no promotion needed.
Beyond those problems, I don't see why there's a problem with having too many friends. Unfriend Day's page says it's to "protect the sacred nature of friendship," but I don't think that's a problem. My close friendships are not harmed just because my friend is also friends with someone they met at night school eight years ago, or the woman in HR he can't remember the last name of.
I'm not just targeting Kimmel here: Others have tried to put down social media friends over the years, portraying them as meaningless things that are little more than acquaintances. I've always thought that feeling was misguided; there's a lot to be said for those lighter friendships. I'm not pretending that they are the equivalent of the people you share a close connection with. But they are a big part of your life. After all, since those relationships include most of your co-workers, and many people you socialize with, you probably spend half your waking hours with them. They have a big impact on whether you gave good days or bad, and a person who has a positive effect on you can make a big difference in your life.
And the fact is, you don't know when you may have to depend on a sort-of friend. You don't know when misfortune may strike, and you might need to rely on your acquaintances. You may find that when push comes to shove, they care more than you expected. Maybe they'll even loan you fifty dollars.
So don't unfriend your less-close friends. Instead, be glad that we have technology to maintain connections with so many people. And you could reflect on how so many people have affected your life. Or at least, wonder why anyone would look at this world and decide the problem is that there are too many friends.
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Don't Tell Me 'Cause It Hurts
It's been a week since the election, and I've seen a lot of articles passed around social media from disillusioned liberals. A lot of them have been good: They explain people's perspectives and how the result affects them personally. It's informative, and can be emotionally healthy for people to share their burdens. And of course, they can show people how they can do constructive and/or cathartic things to help the causes they believe in.
However, I've seen a few themes that are not helpful. Please think before posting anything with the following ideas:
First of all, note that she - like any famous person entering politics - benefits from the fact that she hasn't taken a stance on anything yet. She'll drop in popularity once she starts taking stands on things. And of course, see my write-up about how we only like strong women when they're not looking for more power.
However, I've seen a few themes that are not helpful. Please think before posting anything with the following ideas:
Bernie would have won
Yes I know, you have that poll from the primaries that showed he'd beat Trump. Well, there was also a poll showing Hillary would beat Trump. You know when it was taken? The day before the election!We should run Michelle in 2020
A lawyer and ex-first-lady from a centre-left ideology who we look up to because she seems very intelligent and self-confident? I'm sure I've heard that before somewhere...First of all, note that she - like any famous person entering politics - benefits from the fact that she hasn't taken a stance on anything yet. She'll drop in popularity once she starts taking stands on things. And of course, see my write-up about how we only like strong women when they're not looking for more power.
At least the campaign is over
My fellow straight white able bodied cis males really need to stop saying this. I'm looking your way, Stephen Colbert. Yes, for us, it's over. But for many others, it's only starting.It was a vicious campaign, we as a nation lost perspective
I'm still looking your way, Stephen. Actually, it was one ordinary campaign, and one over-the-top negative, vindictive, dishonest campaign. And it was the over-the-top negative, vindictive, dishonest campaign that won, so we're going to see more of that in the future. So once again, it's only beginning.Let's remember, we're all Americans
That's kind of the point. One campaign was built around exclusion, and that was the side that won. So if you're now saying, "can't we all just get along?" the answer is no, Americans apparently don't want to get along. This appeal to work together is another example of a plea we hear a lot: "Let's put aside our differences, and work together to achieve the things my side wants."Saturday, November 12, 2016
When 40 Years Old You Reach, Look As Good You Will Not
I'll try to take a break from Trump-related articles now. I find myself wondering what one does when their ideals have been defeated and their values expunged from government. And the answer I keep coming up with is, accept exile on Degobah.
So, Star Wars. Are young people actually into Star Wars? Or is it just wishful thinking on the part of advertisers? I keep seeing ads for Star-Wars-related items portraying kids to young to remember the prequels as playing make believe in the franchise's .
I know some parents my age have introduced their kids to the holy trilogy. So it's probably easy to sell Star Wars toys to those parents. And there seems to be a wide market too; I mentioned Star Wars make up earlier. You can get Star Wars tights and other feminine clothing. I'm assuming the marketing juggernaut isn't slowing down or we'd hear rumours of companies dumping unsold BB8 necklaces in the desert.
The point is, it's kind of ironic that this third generation of Star Wars is a hit with the whole family. When the prequels started up in the late 90's, many of the old fans like myself thought they came off as a little childish. No, this isn't going to be another rant against Jar-Jar. Though, you know, Jar-Jar. But there we're lots of aspects of those movies that were cartoony or dumbed-down.
George Lucas answered criticism like this by pointing out that the original movies were made to appeal to kids, which is why folks like me - who were kids when the original trilogy came out - got into them in the first place. So it wasn't fair for us to begrudge the next generation their own child-oriented movie series.
I could see the logic behind that, except for a couple of things: Realistically, he had to know the audience would be mostly aging fans of the original, whether he likes it or not. And the fact is that young audiences are getting more mature in their media (witness the direction of superhero movies as an example.) In my admittedly subjective opinion, Lucas had gone in the opposite direction, trying to win over modern kids with movies more childish than the ones that won us over in the seventies.
So now the new movies - without Lucas' involvement - have abandoned his strategy. Instead, they're making movies that mostly fit with what the now thirty- to fifty-something original fans were looking for. And yet that ends up appealing to kids better than the prequels did.
So, Star Wars. Are young people actually into Star Wars? Or is it just wishful thinking on the part of advertisers? I keep seeing ads for Star-Wars-related items portraying kids to young to remember the prequels as playing make believe in the franchise's .
I know some parents my age have introduced their kids to the holy trilogy. So it's probably easy to sell Star Wars toys to those parents. And there seems to be a wide market too; I mentioned Star Wars make up earlier. You can get Star Wars tights and other feminine clothing. I'm assuming the marketing juggernaut isn't slowing down or we'd hear rumours of companies dumping unsold BB8 necklaces in the desert.
The point is, it's kind of ironic that this third generation of Star Wars is a hit with the whole family. When the prequels started up in the late 90's, many of the old fans like myself thought they came off as a little childish. No, this isn't going to be another rant against Jar-Jar. Though, you know, Jar-Jar. But there we're lots of aspects of those movies that were cartoony or dumbed-down.
George Lucas answered criticism like this by pointing out that the original movies were made to appeal to kids, which is why folks like me - who were kids when the original trilogy came out - got into them in the first place. So it wasn't fair for us to begrudge the next generation their own child-oriented movie series.
I could see the logic behind that, except for a couple of things: Realistically, he had to know the audience would be mostly aging fans of the original, whether he likes it or not. And the fact is that young audiences are getting more mature in their media (witness the direction of superhero movies as an example.) In my admittedly subjective opinion, Lucas had gone in the opposite direction, trying to win over modern kids with movies more childish than the ones that won us over in the seventies.
So now the new movies - without Lucas' involvement - have abandoned his strategy. Instead, they're making movies that mostly fit with what the now thirty- to fifty-something original fans were looking for. And yet that ends up appealing to kids better than the prequels did.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Top Ten Good Things About Donald Trump Winning The Election
10. No need to listen to years of "It was rigged!"
9. Make America Great Again? More like Make The Daily Show Great Again!
8. Years from now, when you meet a young man named "Donnie," you'll already know plenty about his parents.
7. Conservatives have bought about all the survivalist gear they'll ever need; it's time for liberals to get in on it.
6. All the commemorative country songs.
5. ...and all the hilarious products Trump himself will sell to commemorate his win.
4. We can spend the next few months watching the media slowly realize that Trump really is President, and it's not that entertaining.
3. Assuming the pattern goes full-circle, we'll now get intelligent, polite, experienced reality stars.
2. Now that we have a new paradigm for successful political personalities, it will be fun watching other candidates try to copy it.
1. Deep-down, we all know it: this is the Karmic price for the Cubs winning the World Series
9. Make America Great Again? More like Make The Daily Show Great Again!
8. Years from now, when you meet a young man named "Donnie," you'll already know plenty about his parents.
7. Conservatives have bought about all the survivalist gear they'll ever need; it's time for liberals to get in on it.
6. All the commemorative country songs.
5. ...and all the hilarious products Trump himself will sell to commemorate his win.
4. We can spend the next few months watching the media slowly realize that Trump really is President, and it's not that entertaining.
3. Assuming the pattern goes full-circle, we'll now get intelligent, polite, experienced reality stars.
2. Now that we have a new paradigm for successful political personalities, it will be fun watching other candidates try to copy it.
1. Deep-down, we all know it: this is the Karmic price for the Cubs winning the World Series
Monday, November 7, 2016
Eighteen Months Of Insanity
I'm headed back to my media-proof bunker for the next twenty-four hours. But if you want to read even more about the American election, here's a list of all my posts about it.
Electioneering: No Surprises - I make a clever explanation of Donald Trump's popularity, and a not-so-clever predition about his election success
That's The News, And I Am Outta Here - about Trump's SNL hosting
Preparing For The Trump Influx - a less serious discussion of how Canada can deal with Americans fleeing their country after a Trump election win.
Politically Incorrect Humour - I try in vain to convince non-political-junkies not to try doing political jokes during this election
Scar Tissue - I look at conservatives and their taste in 90's music
Surveying The Slightly Insulted - how minorities not targetted by Trump have reacted to him
Do Rats Get Adorable Little Lifeboats To Abandon Sinking Ships? - the sexual assault accusations against Donald Trump and their effects on his candidacy
Try To Keep Up - more aftermath of Trump's sex assault issue
Peace Offering - the morality of Democrats paying for a firebombed Republican office
I Know You Are But What Am I - the single weirdest thing about Donald Trump's campaign
April, 2015
Hillary Begins The Ascent - ah, a more innocent time when the biggest problem for Hillary Clinton was that people kept calling her by her first nameJuly, 2015
Where Devils Fear To Tread - a negative impact from Donald Trump's campaign, win or loseAugust, 2015
And Now Here It Is, Your Moment Of Absolute Panic - I'm first onto the Trump-is-scary-not-funny bandwagonElectioneering: No Surprises - I make a clever explanation of Donald Trump's popularity, and a not-so-clever predition about his election success
October, 2015
Split The Difference - the difficulty in finding a candidate that appeals to everyone (bonus: I make a brilliant election prediction)That's The News, And I Am Outta Here - about Trump's SNL hosting
November, 2015
Two Rails Are Safe, Let's Try The Third - outlining how Trump may Go Too FarFebruary, 2016
One Nightmare Down, Three To Go - I come up with several nightmare scenarios for the election, none of which are Trump winning the nominationMarch, 2016
A Rare Right Turn - NASCAR's sort-of but not-really endorsement of Donald TrumpMay, 2016
Cruz In For A Bruisin' - Poor Ted Cruz, he tried so hardPreparing For The Trump Influx - a less serious discussion of how Canada can deal with Americans fleeing their country after a Trump election win.
June, 2016
Whistlin' Yankee - how Trump has changed how politicians refer to controversial topicsJuly, 2016
A Sudden Sense of Liberty - I tackle the old question of why relgious Americans love Donald Trump so muchAugust, 2016
A Smear To Far - the aftermath of Trump's attack on Captain Khan's familyPolitically Incorrect Humour - I try in vain to convince non-political-junkies not to try doing political jokes during this election
Scar Tissue - I look at conservatives and their taste in 90's music
September, 2016
Lies, Damned Lies, And Satire - how comedians and talk shows have handled the electionOctober, 2016
Going Back For Thirds - a quick rundown of third-party candidatesSurveying The Slightly Insulted - how minorities not targetted by Trump have reacted to him
Do Rats Get Adorable Little Lifeboats To Abandon Sinking Ships? - the sexual assault accusations against Donald Trump and their effects on his candidacy
Try To Keep Up - more aftermath of Trump's sex assault issue
Peace Offering - the morality of Democrats paying for a firebombed Republican office
November, 2016
This Is On You - the effects of gender on Hillary Clinton's likabilityI Know You Are But What Am I - the single weirdest thing about Donald Trump's campaign
Sunday, November 6, 2016
I Know You Are But What Am I
Okay, there's a million unbelievable things that have happened in this election, so I'm just going to look at the most unbelievable, at least to me.
Melania Trump has announced that she wants to fight bullying, particularly cyber-bullying. Okay, that's weird to begin with, but not the unbelievable thing that I'm getting to. Sure, a First Lady usually picks a cause to promote, so nice of her to consider that. Aside from the fact that it's a bit presumptuous to be anouncing that before the election, there's the huge problem that she's married to someone who is basically bullying personified.
But there is precedent for this sort of thing. I've written about bullying-hypocrisy before. And Laureen Harper, wife of PM Stephen, tried to promote an anti-bullying strategy, also oblivious to the fact that she was married to Exhibit A. I'd like to think that they, on some level, they understand that their husbands are part of the problem. Remember how Barabara Bush, first lady to Bush Sr., promoted literacy. And then we met her son. And her other son. And her nephew.
Melania fighting bullying is strange, but wouldn't even make the top hundred strange things in this campaign. But here's the thing that I haven't been able to understand right from the start: Trump's a bully, and a candidate bullying his way almost all the way to the presidency doesn't surprise me. But, Trump is so bad at being a bully.
I mean, he's definitely got some abilities: in the primaries he showed a talent for someone's weakness and attaching a label that would stick. Low-energy Jeb, little Marco Rubio, that showed some real evil social skills. But there have also been so many blatantly obvious, grasping at straws moments. "No puppet, no puppet...You're the puppet" Really? Seven-year-olds on a playground would laugh at someone who tried to deflect an insult so desperately.
Countless people have noticed the pattern that he keeps insulting people by accusing others of his own faults, like some sort of ready-made psychoanalysis. It's comical, but it also displays his own weaknesses for all to see. Again, on any playground, that sort of thing would be exploited by everyone around him.
And then there's his common tactic of avoiding questions by spouting a meandering stream of diversions, vague descriptions and promises without details. Of course, polilticians have verbally dodged questions forever, but he is, once again, incredibly bad at it. Rather than distract us from bad news - as most politicians would - he transparently displays that he has no knowledge or plans on the topic he was asked about. Some people have compared this technique to that of a child giving a book report and hoping the teacher won't figure out he hasn't read the book. But a different metaphor is that of a kid trying to fit in, exaggerate his experience, tell everyone he's drank beer, kissed a girl, or kicked someone's ass.
So I don't get it. Bullying is part of everyone's past, and I can understand that the amoral or the authoritarian might be taken-in as adults by someone who displays the traits of a bully as proof of strength. But surely anyone who displays that agression as clumsily as Trump does would end up seeming like a wannabe, and perceived as just another weakling.
Melania Trump has announced that she wants to fight bullying, particularly cyber-bullying. Okay, that's weird to begin with, but not the unbelievable thing that I'm getting to. Sure, a First Lady usually picks a cause to promote, so nice of her to consider that. Aside from the fact that it's a bit presumptuous to be anouncing that before the election, there's the huge problem that she's married to someone who is basically bullying personified.
But there is precedent for this sort of thing. I've written about bullying-hypocrisy before. And Laureen Harper, wife of PM Stephen, tried to promote an anti-bullying strategy, also oblivious to the fact that she was married to Exhibit A. I'd like to think that they, on some level, they understand that their husbands are part of the problem. Remember how Barabara Bush, first lady to Bush Sr., promoted literacy. And then we met her son. And her other son. And her nephew.
Melania fighting bullying is strange, but wouldn't even make the top hundred strange things in this campaign. But here's the thing that I haven't been able to understand right from the start: Trump's a bully, and a candidate bullying his way almost all the way to the presidency doesn't surprise me. But, Trump is so bad at being a bully.
I mean, he's definitely got some abilities: in the primaries he showed a talent for someone's weakness and attaching a label that would stick. Low-energy Jeb, little Marco Rubio, that showed some real evil social skills. But there have also been so many blatantly obvious, grasping at straws moments. "No puppet, no puppet...You're the puppet" Really? Seven-year-olds on a playground would laugh at someone who tried to deflect an insult so desperately.
Countless people have noticed the pattern that he keeps insulting people by accusing others of his own faults, like some sort of ready-made psychoanalysis. It's comical, but it also displays his own weaknesses for all to see. Again, on any playground, that sort of thing would be exploited by everyone around him.
And then there's his common tactic of avoiding questions by spouting a meandering stream of diversions, vague descriptions and promises without details. Of course, polilticians have verbally dodged questions forever, but he is, once again, incredibly bad at it. Rather than distract us from bad news - as most politicians would - he transparently displays that he has no knowledge or plans on the topic he was asked about. Some people have compared this technique to that of a child giving a book report and hoping the teacher won't figure out he hasn't read the book. But a different metaphor is that of a kid trying to fit in, exaggerate his experience, tell everyone he's drank beer, kissed a girl, or kicked someone's ass.
So I don't get it. Bullying is part of everyone's past, and I can understand that the amoral or the authoritarian might be taken-in as adults by someone who displays the traits of a bully as proof of strength. But surely anyone who displays that agression as clumsily as Trump does would end up seeming like a wannabe, and perceived as just another weakling.
Friday, November 4, 2016
You Say You're Not Really That Keen On A Revolution
Most people think of politics as a spectrum. That is, you're not just "left" or "right;" there are different degrees from one extreme to the other. As such, you'd think that people's allegiance would be based on distance on the scale, not just which side you're on. As an analogy, a six-foot-tall man might be called "tall," as is a seven-footer. But really, the six-footer's life is less like the seven-footer, and more like a five-foot-six guy, even though the latter is considered "short." Similarly, centre-right and centre-left politicians have more in common with each other than they do with the extreme voices in their own party.
At least, you'd think so. In practice, I find that people usually find a kinship with others in their own side, even if their views are very different.
An example is when people observe politics in other countries. In the US, all of politics is shifted to the right compared to much of the Western world, such that conservative politicians from other places have policies similar to American liberals. Yet, you still see international conservatives supporting American conservatives, even if the latter is far from the ideals of the former.
Obviously, this whole discussion is motivated by Donald Trump and the cavalcade of Republicans who have knuckled under and agreed to support him. In many cases, this is even after heavily criticising him. And it's even more perplexing when you consider that the Democrats have nominated a business-friendly centrist who would seem to be about as tempting a nominee as they're likely to get.
It all makes you wonder if everyone is, at heart, an extremist. Maybe we only differ in how pragmatic we are in our pursuit of those ideals. That seems especially likely when we look at the other American party's experience in the primary season. On the surface, the battle between the centrist Clinton and the socialist Sanders is a pretty wide divide. Clinton is unofficially running for Obama's third term, while Sanders was calling for revolutionary changes.
But the view changes when you try comparing politicians' actual beliefs, rather than their policies. You never know whether a moderate politician truly believes their moderate policies are the best, or merely think the moderate policies are all they are able to get accepted. Of course, we can never know the answer to this question, as a pragmatic moderate wouldn't want to let on that they secretly want more extreme policies. But the point is that you don't know for certain what a moderate really wants; they could be ideologically the same as any extremist.
So maybe Hillary Clinton is as socialist as Bernie Sanders, and moderate Republicans have always secretly wanted a Donald Trump type figure. Though that does beg the question: does anyone want moderate policies? In most facets of life, the majority doesn't want extremism. Modern music is not just death metal and ambient electronic, so you don't expect politics to just be communism and fascism.
My guess is the explanation is about comfort. Going back to the idea of the political spectrum: we may all have an idea of the best place on the spectrum to be, but we also have a side we'd like to err on. Political people seem to only be afraid of attacks from one side. For instance, a moderate liberal may not want abolish tradition, but they aren't really afraid of or bothered by it the same way a conservative would be.
If we're not scared of the extremists on our own end of the spectrum, we might choose them over a relatively close candidate on the other side. It comes down to the things we value. You may disagree with an extremist's methods and the degrees they go to, but you may still share their priorities. And thus, you'll know that they won't harm the things you hold most sacred.
At least, you'd think so. In practice, I find that people usually find a kinship with others in their own side, even if their views are very different.
An example is when people observe politics in other countries. In the US, all of politics is shifted to the right compared to much of the Western world, such that conservative politicians from other places have policies similar to American liberals. Yet, you still see international conservatives supporting American conservatives, even if the latter is far from the ideals of the former.
Obviously, this whole discussion is motivated by Donald Trump and the cavalcade of Republicans who have knuckled under and agreed to support him. In many cases, this is even after heavily criticising him. And it's even more perplexing when you consider that the Democrats have nominated a business-friendly centrist who would seem to be about as tempting a nominee as they're likely to get.
It all makes you wonder if everyone is, at heart, an extremist. Maybe we only differ in how pragmatic we are in our pursuit of those ideals. That seems especially likely when we look at the other American party's experience in the primary season. On the surface, the battle between the centrist Clinton and the socialist Sanders is a pretty wide divide. Clinton is unofficially running for Obama's third term, while Sanders was calling for revolutionary changes.
But the view changes when you try comparing politicians' actual beliefs, rather than their policies. You never know whether a moderate politician truly believes their moderate policies are the best, or merely think the moderate policies are all they are able to get accepted. Of course, we can never know the answer to this question, as a pragmatic moderate wouldn't want to let on that they secretly want more extreme policies. But the point is that you don't know for certain what a moderate really wants; they could be ideologically the same as any extremist.
So maybe Hillary Clinton is as socialist as Bernie Sanders, and moderate Republicans have always secretly wanted a Donald Trump type figure. Though that does beg the question: does anyone want moderate policies? In most facets of life, the majority doesn't want extremism. Modern music is not just death metal and ambient electronic, so you don't expect politics to just be communism and fascism.
My guess is the explanation is about comfort. Going back to the idea of the political spectrum: we may all have an idea of the best place on the spectrum to be, but we also have a side we'd like to err on. Political people seem to only be afraid of attacks from one side. For instance, a moderate liberal may not want abolish tradition, but they aren't really afraid of or bothered by it the same way a conservative would be.
If we're not scared of the extremists on our own end of the spectrum, we might choose them over a relatively close candidate on the other side. It comes down to the things we value. You may disagree with an extremist's methods and the degrees they go to, but you may still share their priorities. And thus, you'll know that they won't harm the things you hold most sacred.
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #34
The Cubs will eventually win the World Series.
I don't have a joke about this. But it does fit the category better than just about anything.
I don't have a joke about this. But it does fit the category better than just about anything.
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
This Is On You
I think Hugh Laurie summed up the U.S. election recently when he appeared on Colbert. Most news focussed on Dr. House diagnosing Donald Trump. But that's not what I'm talking about - after all, do we really need one more person trying to explain what's wrong with him at this point? No, what I thought was insightful was his confusion at people's attitude to Hillary Clinton. As he put it:
That's been my attitude all along. And it's fitting that I saw my views spelled out so clearly on a talk show, because I also had another moment of clarity about Hillary Clinton while watching a talk show.
It was back during the 2008 election campaign, when Bill Maher was on Leno. He happened to mention her name, provoking a few boos from the crowd. Rather than use that as a springboard to take easy shots at her, he challenged the booers, saying,
Ironically, I could only find the exact text of that quote at a right-wing blog. But back to the issue. Maher has got a point. Centrist Democrats are the vanilla of politics: not everyone will like it, but no one will really hate it. When you actually look at what Hillary stands for and does, you can certainly explain why Republicans will not be won over, or why the far left won't be excited about her. But there's really no explanation for hatred.
But the understanding of Hillary hatred gets more difficult when you look back at her long-term popularity as a poltician. Sady Doyle points out that she's actually been quite popular once she has a job. Her highest popularity was only a few years ago when she was Secretary of State, but her approval ratings plummet when she runs for President. Of course, you can expect a politician to lose some popularity when exposed to political campaigns, but even that can't explain the night-and-day difference in how she's been seen over the past eight years.
People grasp at different explanations, like a lack of charisma. But I don't remember anything this antagonistic against Mitt Romney or Al Gore. But a bland poltician who gets instantly hated when she shows career aspirations? Let's face it: it's all about gender. We've reached a point where we're okay with women in positions of power, but we still haven't accepted women being assertive or striving to achieve.
Armed with that perspective, you can also understand everyone's sudden love affair with Michelle Obama. She's campaigning for Clinton, essentially saying the same things, and getting heaps of praise for it. And people are saying - with varying degrees of subtlety - how much better it would be if she was the one running against Trump. But that's naive. Of course we love her; she's not running for president. Give her the nomination and the knives will come out.
One of the most disappointing aspects of this problem is how the prejudice is perpetrated by both genders. Throughout the campaign, I've seen so many women express the same vague-but-strong dislike of Hillary Clinton. There'll be talk of attitude, mannerisms, maybe a comparison to a disliked woman you knew in the past.
I know, as a man, I'm not normally in position to school women on sexism. But as a straight-white-able-bodied-cis-male, if there's one thing I do know, it's prejudice. So let me tell you: prejudice doesn't feel wrong. In fact, it doesn't feel like anything. It feels like you, your feelings. When you hate someone but there's no logical reason why. Or when you're okay with Group X, you just don't like this particular member of Group X. That's what it feels like, and you have to challenge yourself on that. It's something we all have to learn to do.
The people who hate Hillary hate her so much...I feel as if I've missed the first reel of the film where she burned down the orphanage or something.
That's been my attitude all along. And it's fitting that I saw my views spelled out so clearly on a talk show, because I also had another moment of clarity about Hillary Clinton while watching a talk show.
It was back during the 2008 election campaign, when Bill Maher was on Leno. He happened to mention her name, provoking a few boos from the crowd. Rather than use that as a springboard to take easy shots at her, he challenged the booers, saying,
If you hate Hillary Clinton, that is so on you. She's a bland centrist. If you hate her, those are your issues. You were molested by a real estate lady or something.
Ironically, I could only find the exact text of that quote at a right-wing blog. But back to the issue. Maher has got a point. Centrist Democrats are the vanilla of politics: not everyone will like it, but no one will really hate it. When you actually look at what Hillary stands for and does, you can certainly explain why Republicans will not be won over, or why the far left won't be excited about her. But there's really no explanation for hatred.
But the understanding of Hillary hatred gets more difficult when you look back at her long-term popularity as a poltician. Sady Doyle points out that she's actually been quite popular once she has a job. Her highest popularity was only a few years ago when she was Secretary of State, but her approval ratings plummet when she runs for President. Of course, you can expect a politician to lose some popularity when exposed to political campaigns, but even that can't explain the night-and-day difference in how she's been seen over the past eight years.
People grasp at different explanations, like a lack of charisma. But I don't remember anything this antagonistic against Mitt Romney or Al Gore. But a bland poltician who gets instantly hated when she shows career aspirations? Let's face it: it's all about gender. We've reached a point where we're okay with women in positions of power, but we still haven't accepted women being assertive or striving to achieve.
Armed with that perspective, you can also understand everyone's sudden love affair with Michelle Obama. She's campaigning for Clinton, essentially saying the same things, and getting heaps of praise for it. And people are saying - with varying degrees of subtlety - how much better it would be if she was the one running against Trump. But that's naive. Of course we love her; she's not running for president. Give her the nomination and the knives will come out.
One of the most disappointing aspects of this problem is how the prejudice is perpetrated by both genders. Throughout the campaign, I've seen so many women express the same vague-but-strong dislike of Hillary Clinton. There'll be talk of attitude, mannerisms, maybe a comparison to a disliked woman you knew in the past.
I know, as a man, I'm not normally in position to school women on sexism. But as a straight-white-able-bodied-cis-male, if there's one thing I do know, it's prejudice. So let me tell you: prejudice doesn't feel wrong. In fact, it doesn't feel like anything. It feels like you, your feelings. When you hate someone but there's no logical reason why. Or when you're okay with Group X, you just don't like this particular member of Group X. That's what it feels like, and you have to challenge yourself on that. It's something we all have to learn to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)