|
You read it anyway
You folks don't follow directions well. I got ten or so emails on last night's "don't read this" rant. Next time I want you to comment, I'm going to mark it "don't comment" - you seem to respond well to reverse psychology.
No, no, I'm only teasing! I'm actually delighted with the mail I got. All of it was really provocative. More so since, at about four in the morning, I finally sorted out my head and realized what was really eating me - and while everything I quote below is quite valid discussion, what lurked under last night's rant actually veers off in a different direction entirely.
So this entry, like Hell, is other people :) In the next entry, I shall speak for myself.
First, here's an entry from Shmuel which touches on all the matters I somehow managed to conflate into one sticky lump.
Since he has it all in an entry, I don't need to talk about it here :)
I don't usually intersperse latter-day material like this, but Ysabel's link below is dead and Shmuel's can't last forever, so here are the most pertinent bits - you should read the whole thing if it's still there, but in case it's not:
"And to anticipate one more objection... yes, this means that I'm saying that virtually all people do stupid things at times, including myself. Really stupid things, even. Does that imply that I believe that most people are stupid? Absolutely not. Which, I suspect, is a crucial point being missed in Columbine's third entry in the series. Of course people on the whole are intelligent, and capable of making decisions for themselves. Which is precisely why you need to grant them the right to make stupid decisions at times.
It seems to me that not allowing people to fly solo with Kennedy's level of certification -- as Columbine advocates -- because they might make stupid decisions, ultimately implies that people aren't capable of making such decisions for themselves... in other words, asserting the very notion of general stupidity that she detests.
[ ... ]
On to point #3, which, to paraphrase once again, was that sci-fi fans and others need to stop shutting themselves off from the "Real World," and realize that taking refuge in a smaller subset of that world is both morally unacceptable, and a hollow victory, at best.
I think the main problem I have over here is with the assumption that there is, in fact, such a thing as "The Real World"; that is to say, one world in which we all live. The argument seems to rest on the belief that you can be part of that world, or try to block yourself off from it, but it's there all the same, and that fact must be acknowledged. It also suggests that to be part of a smaller subgroup of the Real World is to turn one's back on the Real World, to some degree.
I don't happen to believe any of that.'
Ysabel wrote an entry (after a long hiatus) where she mentions our ongoing debate, but not in nearly the detail of her emails. Since she has graciously given me permission to quote them at length, and since I feel I owe her equal time, let's dive in:
I dunno, it seems to me that if "the world," whatever that is, is broken and unfixable, that doing your best to provide some sort of haven within it is about as constructive as you can get.
Yes, I know, we disagree about whether "the world" or society or whatever is unfixable. Suffice it to say that it's an axiom in my world view. Given that, what else can I do but do what I can to build something good and useful irrespective of what society says?
I don't understand why, in any context, "build(ing) a Happy Place with the people who accept (you)" is not a constructive thing. It seems, by definition, to be constructive. It's certainly better than giving up on life entirely.
Her response to my three points from the previous entry:
1. If you believe that most people are stupid then you are not helping to change that ....
I disagree entirely. Just because I turn my back on society as a whole doesn't mean that I'm unwilling to help or educate those who want my help. I teach anything I know to anyone who wants to learn it. I preach the Motorcycle Safety Foundation course to anyone who'll listen. And so on.
I'm just heartless about those who refuse to learn.
2. If you revel in your outcast status, you are turning your back ....
Again, it's possible to revel in your outcast status without "just hiding." I am an outcast, I have learned to rather enjoy it. It doesn't mean that I don't contribute to society in every way that I can.
I'm just heartless about those who are damaging society in my opinion.
3. If you believe that the world is intolerant then you are helping make it so.
I might be willing to grant you this one. I am intolerant of those who cling to their preconceptions, to their ignorance. I am not ever intolerant of anyone who is willing to try...even if they fail. If that's a crime, well, I guess I'm guilty.
I think you're conflating different concepts. It's possible to think that society sucks, that it's unfixable as a whole, yet still do what you can to make everything you can touch right. Or, at least try as best you can.
She concludes that:
I think I know what the difference is.
I'm extremely forgiving of those who try. Even if they fail. And I am entirely heartless about those who don't try. I figure that they deserve to get screwed for it.
I think you are much more generous than that.
While that's stated generically, I think it sums much of my beliefs up, tweaked for the appropriate situation. I believe in socialized health care for kids. I believe in the best education we can manage to provide, equally to all kids. I'd be willing to pay even more taxes than I am already screwed by if I thought I'd actually get those two things. I believe that everyone deserves a chance, and they don't get a chance if they can't get a decent education or if they don't survive childhood relatively intact. (Much of my disgust of child abuse stems from similar philosophy.)
But then, I also believe that anyone who blows off that chance deserves whatever crap they get. Anyone who decides it's easier to stumble along blindly rather than think gets to clean the shit off their shoes, if they're lucky...and they fall down a cliff if they're not.
And now here's Marc proving that he's known me for a long time and understands a great deal about how I think:
The problem is not that you're upset, but that you're going too fast.
I know why Ysabel's statements bother you. The trouble is that you're both right, in one way, and wrong in another.
When someone says "Trust me," one has to either take it at face value, or, delay matters while you personally verify that what they say is true. Sometimes, in quick decisions, primates and their successors will tend to go along with the alpha risk-taker. Other times, one agrees with the risk-taker out of habit, years of success, or browbeaten fear.
You loathe the idea of being wrong, even when ONLY YOU KNOW, to say nothing of harming others by your being wrong. You'll bear up under any stress you cause yourself, but I've seen you fly all to pieces when you discover that even one other person is irritated because they are affected.
You would feel, if you were Kennedy's ghost (or whatever), inconsolably shattered by what you'd done. Kennedy's risk-taking involved other people to a degree you find unacceptable.
You said you wouldn't have flown. To your mind, there had to have been options. Get someone to drive. Plan your schedule better if you were flying in a rush, or pay someone to plan your schedule for you. Get someone else to fly the plane. Many options.
If he'd driven the group off a cliff in the fog, we'd feel differently.
Kennedy's passengers took risks, too. Whether they LABELLED the risks in their minds as "Kennedy might kill us all" or "Weather might kill us all, regardless of our pilot's skill" matters little.
I agree with you: Planes should be difficult to fly. It should be a long and meticulous process. Every pilot should be overqualified. How long is the training for brain surgery or psychiatry? Do you want someone poking around in your skull who can really set bones properly? I don't know if I buy the explanation "it's too expensive" to go through the IFR training. Where are we setting our expectations?
If Ysabel says "Yes, they should have died from their stupidity" I can agree with her to a point. Your mentality may come from an ethic you get from programming computers. You design and evaluate products ideally so that the user can't screw up their system too badly. Letting someone get themselves into that kind of trouble strikes you as bad design. It is not their responsibility to know enough to protect themselves; it's not their field of expertise. Since lots of computer users can't possibly be expected to understand the risks, you endeavor to outthink them. And to a large extent, you expect that you will be able to do that.
What Marc does not realize is that Ysabel creates computer programs for a living also. I'm curious to see what she has to say about this final paragraph.
I'm a little shocked to see that a significant number of messages about this put "real world" or similar phrases in quotes, or otherwise indicated that they felt this was a dubious concept. I believe in a consensus reality - I believe there is such a thing as a Real World and it's majority-rule. (That in itself, if true, doesn't bode well for the tastes of the majority - but never mind that.)
At any rate, as Aussie understands, when I talk about the Real World I don't really mean in a philosophical sense. I burned myself out on philosophical arguments (it's Marc's fault) some time ago and I'm never going back again. When I talk about the Real World, I mean the world of the suits. The world where life ticks on like a clock and people try not to think about anything that is outside their narrow sphere of working and eating and sleeping.
But that's cynical ... and that gets closer to what's really bothering me, so let's save it.
In an email from David Talley which was otherwise about the subjective nature of reality, I found this:
So we see monsters, because that's what we've grown used to seeing (or thinking we're seeing). We're looking in the mirror and mistaking it for reality, because all we know of reality is the contents of our own heads.
That is very important. Let that be the grace note for the next entry.
© Columbine
|
|
