Go, tell it on the mountain!

Guys. Listen up. This is important.

Science had more-or-less cured cancer. No joke.

But thanks to the work of beauty which is capitalism, the pharmaceutical giants of the world have prevented this miracle news from getting more than minimal cover from the media. This makes me extremely angry, but we aren't going to go into that.

Thankfully, we have the pre-SOPA internet to save the day! So please spread the following link to everyone you know via social media, and also those other ways you can spread links which social media addicts such as myself have forgotten exist.

The link is this:  http://wemustknow.net/2011/05/scientists-cure-cancer-but-no-one-takes-notice/

Now go and spread the good news to all the four corners of the earth.

Fairytale of New York

Many Westerners watched the scenes in Pyongyang after the death of Kim Jong-Il with incredulity and disbelief. "How can they grieve so hysterically over the death of a politician, a dictator?!" we asked. "North Korean propaganda must be some freakily effective shit."

Yet, the main story dominating the BBC news site yesterday was all like "The Duke of Edinburgh is out of hospital! Hooray! Hurrah! How wonderfully pleasing!" What's more, the news for all the days immediately preceding yesterday has been at least partially dominated by detailed analysis of the dear old Duke's progress in hospital, one correspondent informing the public that "six of the DofE's eight grandchildren visited him for about forty-five minutes..."
Imagine if he had died, and the endless demand the media would have made on our reserves of caring as a result. Don't get me wrong, I would have been vaguely sad if the Duke died, because all humans are worthy of mourning. But when the royals cop it, the country will be expected to grieve as though it was a member of their family which was no longer among us. And I think it's stupid.

The point is, the Western world is just as susceptible to personality cults as North Korea. In a sense, democracy is an even greater enabler of idolisation that totalitarianism, since our politicians need to attain our "love" for their careers to exist at all. 
While we aren't wrong to look at the North Koreans and be freaked out over their apparent adoring devotion to Old Kim Jong, we should be aware of how often we liberated Westerners fall into the same trap. Think upon Diana, Lady Gaga, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher, even Stephen Fry. How many people's worldviews hinge on the unfettered adoration of individuals such as these. I do it too. We all do.

The problem is that such idolisation commits the High Treason of believing that a person is anything more than a person. Reducing other individuals to empty vessels for the love (or hate) we feel we need to give prevents us from genuinely appreciating what they are, and causes us to expect so much from them that we react disproportionately to any less-than-perfect decision that they make. It reduces our own humanity, too, as our personal flourishing depends on viewing all our fellow humans as equals, neither superior or inferior. Only then can we accept what they have to offer us without a) blindly accepting anything they say to be true or b) dismissing everything they are/think/do as insignificant.



BTW, all blog posts I make between now and the 6th of Jan will be named after Christmas/New Years songs. The titles will make sense inside my head, but possibly not anywhere else.

My Continued Fall From Faith

So I wasn't going to post a blog post about God and the end of my belief in him. I made a silent promise that such a thing would not exist, because I didn't want to risk contributing to the largely ego-driven bickering between believers and atheists which gets way too much "air-time" on the internet. But, whatever. Atheism is taking up too much of my thoughts to possibly blog about anything else. Except possibly Chris Colfer, but that would be even worse.

Here goes, then. I've gone from a state of ambiguous not-really-caring-either-way to one of fully-fledged atheistic humanism. There are a number of reasons for this, many of which are probably too tied up in the psychology of the subconscious for me to really fathom. I've been inspired by various verbal and written works by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Fry, and have basically been able to abandon the pro-God arguments still inhabiting my brain.

I won't go too much into it. But essentially, the creation and growth of the universe is a continuous process. Stars burst into existence from the build-up of billions of chemical reactions. Planets and continents shape themselves gradually, organically, at the cross-section of the necessary physical laws. Life colonises worlds by an endless sequence of natural processes, and bigger and better species develop through the trial-and-error of natural selection. There is no room in the universe for a designer. The only place you can fit God, in my opinion, is at the beginning, to kick-start the chain of reactions which gradually built the universe up into what it is. But the problem with putting him there is that you don't need an omnipotent, omniscient conscious being just to flick the first pebble of an avalanche. And it certainly doesn't follow that the pebble-flicker should be the source of our morality.

Yes, it's incredibly unlikely for life and DNA to exist. But we've had all of eternity and all the endless expanse of space for that unlikely thing to happen. That is to say, given all the billions upon billions of stars and planets there are, the low probability of life happening somewhere seems a hell of a lot less daunting.

To summarise, I don't think the nature of the universe implies a creator or designer. I also don't think we need religious revelation to teach us morality. As the aforementioned Christopher Hitchens puts beautifully, if we didn't know before the dawn of the Abrahamic faiths that murder and theft were bad and that human solidarity was necessary, we wouldn't have got anywhere as far as Mount Sinai. And anyway, if we only know or think that an action is good because God or his messengers tell us so, then we and our actions don't deserve the title of "moral". There is no point in doing something you consider the right thing unless you know for yourself that it is the right thing.

So how is life without God? Well, there is a mourning process which comes from giving up something as huge as Christianity. There was for me, anyway. But I've finished grieving and I'm ready to accept my brand new perspective. And it's kind of freeing. There were things that I thought were bad for no other reason than the bible told me so, but now I look at them and I cannot see what is bad about them. And I realise that finding your own morality is the most empowering and fulfilling thing possible, even surpassing a perceived identity as a child of God.

Many people who are still Christian will tell me that I hadn't really accepted Jesus into my life, that if I had I would not be able to make this change. But, I did. There was a time when I believed in a Heavenly Father and the Living Lord Christ with all my heart and without a shadow of a doubt, and there was a time when their perceived love was the single most important thing in my life. But all things come to an end. I have moved on and I realise now that accepting something without doubt is unhealthy and hindering, and it's not a mistake I plan to make twice.

So here we are.


RIP Christian Me, 1998-2011.

How To Be Charitable Without Spending Any Money

As someone who loves the sense of self-satisfaction that comes from supporting charitable causes, but hates spending money in an almost equal measure, I often find myself in conflict. Which is why I love this new thing I found via this awesome video:  Tab For A Cause
Tab for a Cause essentially works by opening a web page with an advert on every time you open a new tab on your web browser. The money raised in ad revenue then goes to a charity of your choice (from a list they give you). It only works for Google Chrome and Firefox, but if you're as committed to cheapskate charity as I am then you'll download one of the browsers specially.

But TFAC is just ONE of the many ways you can make money go to charities without that money being yours. Besides, like, identity theft, but I don't really recommend that.

Another thing which is similar to TFAC but requires slightly more effort is Click For Your Charity, in which you voluntarily watch an advert of your choice. Every view apparently raises enough money to pay for one week's clean drinking water for one person. Woo!
Another thing which requires a lot more effort (well, depending on the definition of effort) but is also more rewarding is FreeRice.com. Basically, it's a website with lots of quizzes. Every time you answer a question correctly, it donates ten grains of rice to hungry people. Which is pretty cool. It's also pretty fun (if you happen to be a nerd like me). Also, you get a double ego-boost from being proven smart and from helping hungry people.

The fourth and last thing I'm going to mention is Kiva.org, in which you do have to give money, but you get it back. Kiva is a charity which allows you to donate money to entrepreneurs in the third world trying to make life better for themselves. Then once their various entrepreneurial exploits get underway, you get the money back. Thus you have brought about a long-term improvement in the life of someones less fortunate than yourself, at no cost to yourself.

I hope you have found some new worthwhile things to do with your time as a result of this blog. If you are aware of any similar charity-without-losing money services which I haven't mentioned, then please leave them in comments, or tweet them at my face. My love for cheapskate charity knows no bounds.

And that is the end.

Pretentiousness is Annoying

I have become increasingly irritated by people claiming that their subjective opinions are anything other than subjective opinions.

I mean, to some extent we all need to have irrational faith in our own conceptions in order to function. Like, no more that 10% of the claims I make on this blog are objectively true, but functionally I have to act as though everything I say is objectively true, or I wouldn't ever post anything. The same is true for anyone who has ever expressed an opinion ever, or anyone who has ever made a moral judgement about anything. So I have no problem with (or even actively endorse) people making the functional assumption that what they believe to be true is true.

But there's a difference between functionally assuming that everything you beleive is true and actually beleiving that everything you beleive is true. This difference is expressed in certain people's inability to listen to the arguments of other people, certain people's outlandish statements about other people's views, and certain people's inability to go into a debate without pretentiously assuming that everyone disagreeing with them is an idiot. And it's this behaviour and the underlying belief which enables it which has started to really grind my gears.

All humans are fallible. Our understanding of the universe relies on a few fairly impressive but comparatively feeble sensory organs, and the ever-limited ability of our brains to understand what those organs show us. We are all saturated with bias, which is functionally neccessary in order for us to know anything, but freqeuntly prevents us from seeing the full picture. And we are all driven by the desire to be liked and respected and to be able to like and respect ourselves, which, while not a bad thing in itself, all too often eclipses our desire to pursue knowledge and understand the universe.

But too many people in the world seem to have forgotten this. The arrogance of those who seem to subconscously or consciously beleive that they are infallible is mindblowing. Such people seem to have decided exactly how the world works before even leaving their homes, and as such have stopped feeling the need to pay attention to what's actually going on, except to force what they see through the mechanism of their preconceptions.
I should backtrack here. We all suffer from this problem to a certain extent, and psychology tells me that the fact that I regocnise it in others so often indicates that I unknowlingly subscribe to delusions of infalliablity myself. So I'm not out to isolate certain people and point and sneer at them, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary. I'm trying to adress a problem, not the people who suffer from the problem.

The idea I want to promote is that every conscious human being has a valid angle on what the universe is like. I don't agree, fundementally, with the idea that certain people's opinions are just "better" than others. Yes, some points of view seem much more likely than others (evolution over not-evolution, racial equality over racism, etc.), but those views which seem irrational exist for a reason, and the reason is not simply "some people are stupid".
Everyone has different experiences of life, different sources of information and influence, and different internal mechanisms for processing ideas. And these all culminate to produce different opinions. I beleive it is only by considering all points of view, even the ones which seem completely crazy, and looking at the world through as many different angles as possible, will we get closer to "the truth" than we are now.

As such, it is deeply irrational to go through life dismissing all opposing opinions to yours as simply inferior. Not only is it just wrong, but it hinders your own personal development and understanding of the world around you.

Pretentiousness is annoying for the simple reason that it will never get us anywhere.

Thoughts on the Leveson Inquiry

So for anyone unaware, there is currently a government enquiry underway to look into the case for increasing regulation of tabloid newspapers. This is mostly in reaction to the News of the World phone hacking melarkely, but it's been a chance for celebrities and commoners from all corners of the British Isles to reveal various journalistic misdeeds which have so far slipped under the radar.

And some of the stories are shocking. It is clear that the tabloid press have been acting unacceptably, but then I might not be quite as shocked if the BBC had not decided to present what's going on in the way it has. Slight irony there, but there we go.

I am in favour of tighter privacy laws and generally giving a slap around the face to the tabloids (which, in my opinion, are one of the greatest forces for evil in the western world). But let's be clear that the government ministers commissioning the inquiry will personally benefit from a reduction in tabloid power. Rupert Murdoch and his ilk, while hardly men of conscience, are one of the main factors for holding the government accountable for it's actions. Yes, News International et al don't publish govenment scandals for any reason other than for their own profits, and yes, the enormous influence newpapers have over voters is unacceptable. But we do need investigative journalism in the world. Our politicians are constantly performing anti-democratic backdoor deals and acts of spin in order to placate the CEOs and union leaders and pull the wool over the eyes of the public. That is the truth. And as residents of a democracy, we have the right to know what laws and policies our leaders are making and why. We cannot have access to that information without a relatively unregulated press.

So one of the main concerns I have about the Leveson inquiry is that it will act as an excuse for the government to slip in some piece fo legislation which restricts the media from doing exactly what we need it to do. We need the papers to stay independent of government control, or this country will completely cease to be a genuine democracy. The problem is, in a climate currently characterised by the phone hacking and similar scandals, with the never-ending parade of people who's lives have been torn apart by vicious tabloid journalism being shown to usevery day, that no-one will ever dream of objecting to an Act of Parliament which restricts the activity of tabloid journalists.

And maybe that's right. Privacy matters, of course it does. And the way that Charlotte Church, JK Rovwling, Hugh Grant, Kate McCann and all the rest of them have been treated breaks my heart as much as anyone else's. There is no doubt to that.
I am in favour of retracting the coils of journalism from the private lives of individuals. Celebrities, grieving mothers, writers, even politicians- we all have the right to the privacy of our own homes, and it is none of the general public's business who we may have slept with and what diets and fashions we are choosing to sport. If the government introduce regulation which stops the papers from publishing or attempting to find out that kind of information, and that kind of information alone, then I will sing my praises from the nearest rooftop along with the rest of the country.

But the government would be foolish, from their point of view, not to strike while the iron is almost melting and slip in some regulation which stops the press from investigating poltiical sleaze and dishonesty. So I will remain wary of such regulation being part of whatever legislation results from this Inquiry.

No profession or group of people is ever purely a force for evil. While investigative journalism is currently running riot and ruining lives, that does not mean that investigative journalism is an evil thin in itself. And is does not mean that we will not be far worse off as a society without it.  

Hey! You! Have some heartwarming propaganda:

I will post a proper blog post soon, promise, either tonight or tomorrow. But for now, you should all watch this amazing gay marriagey video:

Watch your Language! (in a gay way)

So yesterday, or some other such day, I found myself reading this column in the Guardian, which asserted that people should stop using the word "homosexual" to refer to The Gays. The columnist's argument is that homosexual sounds too much like a medical term, and will always sound as though it is being used to refer to a crazy person. He points out that homosexual is the stubborn word of choice for stuffy, rightist publications like the Torygraph, and has no place in papers like the Guardian.

He sort of has a point. Not a point I agree with, but a point nonetheless.

As he pointed out, the word "homosexual" was coined by a German doctor examining same-sex attraction as a symptom of mental illness. It often has a bitingly clinical tone to it, which many prominent gay writers have objected to. The word gay, does, overall, just sound more embracing.

But then, the origins of the use of "gay" to mean homosexual are hardly more innocent. As we all know, gay initially meant to be carefree and happy. The semantic shift started when its meaning of carefreeness became more narrowed, laden with implications of immorality and hedonism. In the seventeenth century, "gay woman"  meant prostitute, "gay man" meant womanizer, and a "gay house" was a brothel. It is from here that it became a sneering, judgmental term to refer to men who engaged in unholy shenanigans with other men. "Queer", another term now fully embraced by the LGBT community, also began as a derogatory term for effeminate men in the kitchens and schoolyards of traditionalist England.
So if we can bring the words "gay", "queer", and in some cases, even "fag" into acceptable use, why on earth not "homosexual"?

If we got rid of every word to refer to those of a non-heterosexual disposition which had been used in a derogatory way at some point, then we would have no words left. We'd have to create new ones, like "foojillybob". Then fairly soon, once that was used as an insult by some compensating teenager, we'd have to ban that too and coin another word. It would all get very confusing. Or alternatively, we would have to simply not have a word, and everyone would have refer to people like us as "oh, you know, those people who sleep with people with the same genitalia as them". (Actually, this wouldn't be a bad thing, but it probably wouldn't work in today's culture.)

On a more serious note, censoring, as a rule, has worked less well for the gay rights movement than embracement. We will never be able to stop everyone using words we dislike, but if we accept them and attempt to embolden them with more positive connotations (like has been done with queer), then we will go much further in achieving acceptance (or at least tolerance) for LGBTers everywhere.

Personally, I don't believe that a single word can hold much power, unless we let it. All that matters is context. If the S*n prints a headline saying "ZOMG Guys Look What The Gays Have Done Now!!!!" (or something), then that will be a lot more flinch-inducing then reading the word "homosexual" in our belovedly left-wing Guardian.

Let's not fall into the trap of siding with the Political Correctness Squad. Rather, let's let the gay rights movement be seen as a banner for inclusion and tolerance by everyone. 

Thank You For The Universe

So I recently stopped believing in God. Sort of. Pretty much.

It's no big deal. I may start believing again some time soon. I just feel that the question of whether or not there is a God is far less relevant than both the priests and Dawkinsites of the world would have us believe. I have other questions to explore about life, myself and the universe, and thinking about whether or not God exists was taking up too much of my thinking time. So I have withdrawn myself to a "meh" kind of position on the matter.

The reason I'm telling the internet this is that it's a convenient starting point to talk about how amazing the universe is. Because even as a meh-theist, I can fully understand why people believe in a God (largely because I did so for such a long time). The universe is so huge, and so wonderful, and so complicated, and so bemusing that it seems highly unlikely for it to have formed itself on it's own. It is difficult to process the world without thinking there was an intelligent mind behind it, without an all-powerful being that we can blame, and also thank.

This thanking thing is really important, to me anyway. So even though I now lack a specific being for me to thank, I'm going to put it out there anyway.

Thank you that I am conscious. Thank you that I was born into a human body with the capacity to think.
Thank you for the incredible body I have. Well, in my case the amazingness is mostly internal. But still. Thank you for the trillions of cells that perform immensely complicated chemical processes at mind-bending speed to ensure that this human being can exist.
Thank you that there is food, water, oxygen, warmth, and land space enough for me to survive. Thank you further that I have enough of it to live extremely comfortably. Let me never forget how lucky I am to essentially be able to eat at will.
Thank you that the human race was not wiped out with a meteor or solar flare or deadly disease or anything before I had the chance to be born.
Thank you that the planet Earth at the almost impossibly precise conditions necessary to harbour life.
Thank you that there is a star nearby which conveniently creates more heat and light than my entire species will ever need every hour. Thank you for all the stars, where the elements that make up me and the things I love were forged.
And thank you that the universe is just so damn beautiful to make conscious existence the miraculous opportunity that it is, even if it only lasts for a short while.

On a similar note, we as humans often fret about the meaning of life. We act as though there has to be some predetermined task for us to accomplish in order for conscious existence to be worth it. I disagree. The way I see it, life is even more exciting without a meaning that has been decided for us. We have been given the most miraculous thing on earth- thought- and we get to decide how we are going to make it matter. Even if we can't manage that (though I think we can), even if all we can do is exist selfishly, then at least someone was here at some point to look at the universe and think: "Goodness. How marvelous."

And, that is all. Sayronara. Live well, everyone.

















(8) "Thank you for the universe,
The stars I'm seeing,
Thaaaaank you fooor my con-scious be-ing..." 

In Defense of Helping Poor People

Now, I know what you're thinking. Well, admittedly I don't, I'm not some sort of psychic woman with a shawl and an arsenal of mystic hand gestures. But I can make a guess at what you're thinking, which is something along the lines of: "Why would you feel the need to defend helping poor people? Everyone likes helping poor people! It's like my favourite thing to do!"

The problem is that while the vast majority of first-world dwellers like the abstract idea of throwing money at those in poverty (preferably those who live in Africa or some other such magical faraway place) and making their lives better, a lot of us tend to be much less eager to redistribute wealth to the impoverished in our own country. Especially if it means MORE TAX or GOVERNMENT SPENDING or other such force of evil.

A distressing number of middle-class and upper-class residents of this United Kingdom of ours have handily convinced themselves that people are only ever poor because they aren't working hard enough, and that people are only ever rich because they are working very hard indeed. This is a handy view of the world to have in order to justify dismantling industries in the North and South Wales ("just move somewhere with more jobs!") or flat tax rates ("why should people pay more for working hard?"). Such a viewpoint assures the rich that they have no responsibility whatsoever to help those in need, as if they really wanted to stop being poor, they would get off their backsides and work for money. It also assures them that they and their chums deserve every penny they possess, because they only have so much money because they're just so darned better than all those poorer types.

The truth is vastly different.
In this world, if you are poor, it takes a colossal amount of intelligence and talent to stop being poor. Similarly, if you are rich, you have to be incredibly stupid to stop being rich.

In the UK in particular, a child born to a low-income family is likely to experience inadequate schooling, little chance of getting into a good university, dismal job prospects in their local area, and few employment opportunities in later life as potential employers always want either a) qualifications which they can't get or b) experience which no-one will give them.
By contrast, someone born to middle-to-high income parents (like, say, me) is far more likely to get decent schooling, a good place at uni, a successful job, and they're likely to also have the deep delves of their parents pockets to help them out when the going gets any kind of tough.

This isn't just a class issue, either. There are those who take a similarly contemptuous attitude to any and all unemployed people- "they're only not working because they're lazy blah blah blah". This is a complete lie. The reason so many people aren't working is because there are less jobs in Britain that there are people of working age. All the hard work and dedication in the world isn't going to help you if there simply isn't room for you in the jobs market.

This is why the state needs to commit it's resources to helping those in our nation who are poor. The government needs to dedicate itself to proving work and the opportunity for betterment to impoverished people, families and areas Failing/on top of that, we need a comprehensive welfare state and progressive taxes to provide the unfortunate with basic quality of life. Because we cannot ever simply dismiss the poor as idiots who have brought their situation on themselves. The poor are poor because they are stuck in a system which systematically prevents them from becoming otherwise. 

Foreign Aid (again)

So the UK government want to stop giving foreign aid to countries who persecute gay people for being gay people. I admit that when I first heard the news my reaction was a sort of knee-jerk "hooray! pro-gay stuff!" But it turns out the issue is more complicated than that (naturally).

This decision raises all sorts of questions about whether it is right to stop giving money to nations if their government makes a law we don't approve of, and whether politics should get in the way of third world development. Ultimately, I'm not comfortable taking an action which will (presumably) make 32 million Ugandans' lives worse because of the actions of a government consisting of no more than 100 people. I know that's simplistic, but as someone who doesn't support the Conservative party, I would be consider it unjust if the entire country, including me and my determinedly socialist family, were punished because of the policies of the current government.

There are, ultimately, a lot of problems with delivering aid money into the hands of the governments of those countries we want to help. There's the matter of politics getting in the way, which has been highlighted by the issue at hand. There's the authoritarian and selfish nature of many of the Third World's political elite. There's the imperialistic aspect of it, the whole "we gave you money now you must do what we say" thing which sometimes happens. And above all, there's the fact that all the governments we aid to are in heavily debt to Britain and all the other nations of the West anyway, so most if not all of our generous contributions flies straight back into the UK treasury anyway.

However, helping developing countries to develop is, I believe, a good idea. Firstly, I'm anti-nationalist and believe we should use what we can afford of our resources to help those beyond our borders. Secondly, we would ultimately benefit from the development from the third world anyway, in the same way that all of a national society benefits when the rich-poor gap is narrowed.

I think a better way to do foreign aid would be for the government to redirect whatever money it currently gives to third world governments to NGOs which are committed to the economic development of the same countries. That way, politics cannot get in the way (or would be harder to and the money isn't going on anyone's secret nuclear-weapons programme. Also, NGOs are not in debt to Western governments.


(The end.)

How To Solve Things

There are two kinds of solutions. Solutions which negate problems, and solutions which end problems.

When faced with a problem, your choice (apart from giving up) is to try and skirt around the problem and continue on your way, or to stop the problem from existing so that it never comes up again. To climb over the wall, or to pull it down.

People (very much including me) often opt for the former. The negating-problem-solution usually takes less effort, and we have faith that sooner or later someone better than us will come along and sort out the problem for good.

But as always seems to be the case, the world would be much better if we chose the more effortous option. If we were more willing to face problems head-on and sort them out, it would be much more beneficial for both us and the rest of humanity.

Politicians (as well as, like, everyone) often seem to go for the former kind of solution. You often see our world leaders tackling issues by trying to push the effects further into the future, so that someone else with more time on their hands can sort it out, not them. Global warming and the endless debt crisis are good examples of this. And we all know where we're ending up there.

It's like there's a room full of deadly lasers which everyone keeps having to move around in order to live their lives. The switch to turn off the lasers is all the way on the other side of the room, and no-one wants to walk all the way over there when they can just compensate by ducking or stepping over beams occasionally. It would make much more sense to make the long bendy trip over to the switch once, instead of letting everyone carry on trying to ignore and evade the lasers of doom everywhere.

So that's my musing for today. I hope it brought joy to your life.

Hello there. I'm a crazy person.

Ten minutes ago I ate a banana. 

Five minutes after that I panicked, thinking "did I really eat that banana, or did I just pull it off the bunch and leave it?"

I've just checked the compost bin, and concluded that I must have eaten the banana. So all is well.

Except IT ISN'T.

Because I shouldn't have to panic over which fruit I may or may not have consumed.

I spend about 70% of my life freaking out about shit which doesn't actually matter.
You know when you like someone romantically, and you analyse every single thing they say to you and the way they say it for evidence that they love or hate you? I do that with every single human being I ever talk to ever. It's really frustrating.

The top three concerns which take up nearly all of my thinking time are:
a) Does everyone hate me?
b) Did that thing just happen or is my shitty memory making it up?
c) Why am I not working ZOMG I'm such a failure! (this occurs even when I don't actually have any work)

It's silly, because the human brain is amazing, and I should be using mine to think of actual consequential things, like how to solve problems and discover unknown mysteries of the universe. But all I ever seem to be able to focus on are the stupid concerns of an over-hormonal teenager.

It's gotten to the point where I just don't seem able to cope with life any more. I can't look at a situation without deciding it's going to go wrong and then coming up with eight million reasons why. When things do go wrong, or even slightly less than ideal, I just can't manage it. Somewhere in my neural relays it is decided, against my will, that this lack of total success is the end of the world. 

The bright side is that it rarely stops me from actually doing anything. All it does is makes it nigh-impossible for me to enjoy most of the things I do with my time. And, pfft, who needs enjoyment!

Bleh. I don't know why I'm telling the internet this. Probably out of some desire to be honest with my bloggamareaders (or whatever I'm supposed to call them/you).   

There are ways of curing such a state of mind. Mainly this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovLKUoMqPSg

And on that slightly brighter note, until next time! (When I'll go back to blogging about political issues etc. instead of my life. *relief for all*) 

The Royal Family

Today I have the inexplicable whim to blog about the Royal Family and the controversy theresurrounding. So here goes. Please note that, as always, everything I say in this post is nothing more than the subjective opinion of a teenager with internet access, and you shouldn't take anything I say too seriously.

As far as the abstract concept of a royal family goes, I hate it. I am as vehemently opposed to the class system and the power of the birth lottery as the most radical of socialists. I don't even care about the money they have so much, as material inequality is pretty much unavoidable, but the status thing I can barely stand. The fact that we in Britain are supposed to be so reverent and loyal to people who achieved nothing more than being born to parents who were born to parents who were born to parents whose ancestors won some battle centuries ago grinds my stubbornly egalitarian gears. I don't consider the Queen to be superior to me or anyone else in the middle or working class, and if I'm going to ask God to save someone in song, I'd much rather it were Stephen Fry or Chris Colfer or some such awesome person.

That aside, what of the Royal Family we have today? Do I want them all cast into the North Sea?

I've actually blogged about this before, and I don't consider the modern British Royals to be much of a problem.
The reason for this is that the Royals are no longer considered our divine overlords. While they still, technically, have the same status, they have none of the power they had in times of old. Yes, the United Kingdom is not as democratic as I would like it to be, but that has nothing to do the Royals and everything to do with corrupt politicians and a completely immoral banking sector. If you think about it, the Royals have more or less the same status as the rest of us. They are taxed by the government, ridiculed by the media and gossiped about by the public, and can't do anything about it. They are, really, little more than a convenient source of income for parliament, and an effective tourist-magnet.

Officially, yes, all power in parliament is derived from the Monarch. But as we all know, this is nothing more than a ceremonial procedure. It's both slightly bizarre and slightly irksome that the Queen has to sign all our bills and permit every government to form, but no monarch today would be stupid enough to try and wield that power for real. I think that kind of ceremonial power is a fair exchange for the amount of revenue the royals generate for us.
Besides, a lot of people like the royals. In fact, the majority of Brits find Liz and Co endearing to a certain degree. It's probably unfair to get rid of them based on a dogmatic principle of mine.

So, that's a vague summary of what I feel vis-a-vis the House of Windsor.

Until next time.

The Robin Hood Tax

I would like to quickly introduce you all to a thing.

The Robin Hood tax is a proposed fiscal policy which would tax business interactions in the City of London and subsequently raise a lot of money to tackle poverty and climate change and avoid public service cuts.

Check out this video and the website in links to for the lowdown:

Ten Things I Love

I'm in a mood for appreciating the world. As such, here are ten of the things in the universe which I happen to love, and a short squealing of adoration about each thing. They are in no particular order and have no real theme, other than that I love them. So, yeah. Enjoy!

 1. Adele. As in, the singer.
Oh my God. I love this woman and her music so much. Her voice makes me happy, and her lyrics are so clever and gorgeous and beautiful, and the instrumentation for her songs is always perfect. She breaks my heart every time. I love her. I could literally listen to nothing but Adele for ever, if only there wasn't so much other awesome music in the world.

2. The English Language. As in, the thing I'm writing in now. 
Words and sentences excite me. Which is good, because I spend at least half my wakened life writing something or other. Sometimes, it just takes a new word or someone's inventive use of a phrase to make my day. Language is so beautiful and fantastic. It's probably the only reason I'd rather be a human than any other animal. Well, probably not. But it might be the biggest reason.

3. All of the books by Malorie Blackman.
Malorie Blackman (the woman who wrote the Noughts and Crosses saga, The Stuff of Nightmares, Pig-Heart Boy, and much else besides) will probably always retain her ceremonial status as "my favourite author", even though she stands in a bookcase now populated by John Green, Bill Bryson, Phillip Reeve, Emma Donaghue and about a hundred others. I thought back on it a while ago, and realised that she was essentially the one who first introduced me to the "adult world" (you know, the one with sex and racism in it) through her books. My perspective has been so influenced by her work, and I am very indebted by her. Also, her books are always heartbreaking, gripping, hilarious, moving and populated by intensely beloveable characters. The literary world is a far richer place with Ms Blackman in it.

4. Playing the flute. You know, that instrument with the holes in.
So yeah, I play the flute. I'm generally vaguely hesitant to admit such a thing, because I think the flute is generally seen as an instrument played only by stuck-up middle class types who are far more interested in creating correct music than beautiful music. But, who care. I get to make amazing sounds with my mouth because of that thing. I get to create my own renditions of songs I love even if they are far beyond my vocal range. It's one of the most fun things I do with my life. So yes. It definitely earns it's place in the ten.

5. Wearing images of sea creatures around my neck.I used to have a drum necklace, which was awesome, but sadly is no more. Now I have a seahorse and a dolphin necklace, which together make up for it. Yay. Also, seahorses are awesome.

6. Trees. LOLOLOL HIPPY.
Seriously though, I really like trees. They make me happy. Not too happy. Just a little bit happy. But trees are beautiful and make landscapes more awesome when they are present. I like the fact that there are trees in the world. Only when there are no trees will I ever lose hope.

7. The human urge to make things.
I think this urge is present in all of us, and it drives people to do the most amazing things ever. It motivates me, and it appears to motivate a hell of a lot of other people, too. Being creative is one of the most spiritual and wholesome things we can do with our lives, and it makes me happy that so many people are not just willing, but eager, to create new things in the world.

8. Studying A-level Philosophy. No, I'm serious. Stop laughing.
Actually, you're probably not laughing. I suspect I'm nerdy enough for such a love to be believable- predictable, even.
Studying philosophy lets me think in ways I would never have the opportunity to think otherwise. It draws my attention to moral and political and metaphysical issues which I would probably not have noticed otherwise. And the discussions you get in philosophy lessons (provided everyone is awake) are hilarious and engaging and brilliant. It makes my brain better. Therefore, I love it.

9. John and Hank Green, a.k.a. the Vlogbrothers.
Yes, I know I talk about them all the freaking time. But the Green Brothers are two of the most awesome people in the universe, and a lot of the posts I post on here (including this one) wouldn't exist if I hadn't been inspired by one or more of their videos. So I probably owe them all the sentences I use blathering about them. If you don't understand who I'm talking about, then a) ZOMG you have not been paying attention! and b) you can find their Youtube channel thisaway:  http://www.youtube.com/vlogbrothers

10. This.

Thus concludes a reasonable summary of why I still find the universe awesome.

Until next time, folks!

Should you try to be straight?

So I was egocentrically browsing blogger stats just now, and learnt that people were stumbling across my blog by searching the term "should I try to be straight?" in Google. Google was subsequently linking them to this blog post, which, while amazing, I feel is too politically-anchored to be of much use to the Googlers in question. As such, I am going to try and answer the question "should I try to be straight" on a more personal level. Because, you know, I aim to please.

Basically, no. 
There is no reason for you to try to be straight if you are in fact gay or bisexual.

I completely sympathise with what you are going through right now. Realising you are attracted to members of the same sex is, in this world, one of the most painful processes you can go through as a person. It shouldn't be like this, but unfortunately, in a society dominated by ignorance and the phobia of diversity, being anything other than heterosexual is something that marks you as a target for hate from a small but extremely loud section of the human race.

But the good news is, you are better than they are.
Well, okay, not really. Strictly speaking, all humans are morally equal.
But homophobia, like all other forms of prejudice, is a sign of weakness, ignorance and fear. Throwing proverbial stones at anything different from yourself reduces you to one of the lowest possible stages of human development.
As such, you should never, ever let homophobic people dictate how your life is lived.

The main complication with this, of course, is that your family or close friends may disapprove of homosexuality, or you may fear they will.

Here's the deal. Most people come to terms with sexual orientation in their teenage years, a point in time where we have been trained to panic about anything about ourselves which appears different of unusual. So the great news is, much of your concern over what your mum/dad/sibling/BFF might say is irrational, and does not reflect on reality. You find being not-straight to be something disconcerting and panic-inducing, so you assume that everyone else will think along the same lines. But this often turns out to be false.

Of course, some parents do have a problem with their kids being gay. And because they're your parents, you can't dismiss them like you can with general homophobes.
But know this. Your family's disapproval of what you are is irrational and unfair. There is nothing wrong with loving members of the same gender. You do not need to feel ashamed or guilty of this part of yourself.
Be patient with your parents, and let them come around, as, if they have a modicum of sanity, they most assuredly will. It may take a week or a year, but they will come around. And you will be closer and happier than ever before because of it.

The other thing worth mentioning is that sexual orientation isn't something that goes away if you choose to act like it isn't there. If you try to start heterosexual relationships and even families based on heterosexual relationships, you will only end up hurting yourself and all other parties involved. It's not a route you want to go down.
For some bizarre reason, I'm reminded of the TV license adverts: "Easier to pay, harder to avoid". Because in a similar way, getting through the short-term sharp pain of coming out now will save a much greater amount of pain later on in life.

So, that's about that.

Being the person you were born as does not make you any less of a person.

Gay is fine. If nothing else, Stephen Fry's gay, so it must be vaguely okay.

Until next time! 

The Definition of Marriage

So recently, I've heard what seems like an inordinate amount of people claim that same sex marriage is a logical impossibility; that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Many people like to lend support for same-sex civil unions, but get out of supporting gay marriage by using the above claim. There are a number of problems with this.

Opponents of SSM like to promote the idea that gay marriage is some silly modern fad that goes against tradition and everyone will forget about in time. But this is simply historically false. The first instances of definite-for-real marriage between members of the same sex happened in the early Roman Empire (Emperor Nero himself had one), and there are examples of same-sex partnerships which may or may not have been on a similar vein to marriage from even earlier, in ancient China.

Of course, anti-SSM types will still say that these somehow weren't real marriages, and that the people of yonder had some misguided perception about what marriage is. The natural question to ask, then, is where does this infallible definition of marriage come from?

Many claim it comes from religion, specifically Christianity. The problem with this is that marriage has existed for far longer than the Christian tradition, or even the Juedo-Christian tradition. Plus, we have a secular, state-run institution of marriage today anyway. It is absurd, frankly, to suggest that the institution of marriage belongs to and can be defined by the Church.

Other's make argument in regard to procreation. Same-sex relations don't make babies, therefore they aren't valuable enough to be recognised as marriage. Or so the argument goes.
There are two problems with this:
a)  Marriage is not, and has never been, just about making babies. It is about recognising and celebrating the decision of two people to live their lives together, and in a broader sense, the need of humans to be connected to one another.
b) Many gay people or same sex couples raise children anyway, through adoption or through IVF or various other kinds of science, and marriage makes it easier for these children to be raised by the couple whom are considered the child's parents by all involved. Thus, if protection of children is a function of marriage, then same-sex marriage fulfills this wonderfully.

In short, the definition of marriage has never been fixed down. It is a strong societal institution, yes, but it is one which has evolved and developed fluidly to best accomplish what it sets out to accomplish.

You may see marriage as a sacrament, or baby-making process, or some other such thing which excludes same-sex couples, and that's fine. Whatever. But you do not have the power to declare that as the one and only correct definition of marriage, nor the right to make everyone else follow that definition.
It's laughable when anti-SSM organisations accuse progay activists of enforcing their definition of marriage on everyone else. Because that's exactly what a) the antigay camp want to do, and b) the progay camp want to prevent. The antigays want the world to conform to their views on social institution, and exclude everyone who doesn't. The progays want to open up the institution of marriage so that no one camp is able to dictate what family should look like to everyone else.

So is same-sex marriage an oxymoron?
No.
Marriage = an institution which allows legal and social recognition of a couple's commitment to each other*
Same-sex = something which occurs between two people of the same genitalia
There is nothing in those two concepts which is contradictory.
Lets' celebrate love and commitment in all the forms it takes.

The end.




* roughly, anyway; no definition of something like marriage is ever perfect.

Keep Calm and Carry On

There's a poster in my room now which reads "Keep Calm and DFTBA". I would like to share it's significance for me with you lot.

The poster is of course yet another spin on the "Keep Calm and Carry On" posters which were present in the UK during the blitz. These posters were set up everywhere to remind people not to despair at the world falling to pieces around them, but to pick themselves up and carry on until the future dawned.

People (including me) often find themselves going through what we might call emotional blitzes. Times when everything hurts to the extent where you can't even enjoy the good things in life properly. Times when everything you depend on seems to be falling apart. Times when all you want to do is curl up into a ball and hide from the world forever.

My poster is a reminder of three things.
-John and Hank Green and the Nerdfighter community, and all the awesome which espouses from them.
-To Not Forget to be Awesome
-To Keep Calm and Carry On during the times I outlined above.

We all need reminders during the long nights that day will follow. For me, my new poster is one of them. For you, I hope this blog post can be one. (Though that's probably a bit pretentious.)

Depression is ultimately temporary. Don't let it take away the rest of your future. Because the rest of your future is damn worth the wait.

Keep Calm and Carry On. 

Human Rights etc.

In political discourse, there is a certain cesspit of terms which are condemned as "liberal", in the most sneering and contemptuous use of the word possible. Right-wingers jeer tirelessly when terms in this cesspit are used, and left-wingers give them a wide berth to avoid said jeering. The rest of us are left with the impression that the condemned phrases are weak, empty, pointless phrases, and that the non-ironic use of them is a sign of ideological deficiency. Terms in the cesspit include "political correctness", "multiculturalism", and anything remotely synonymous with "co-operation". Some, clearly, are more deserving than others.

For me, it's a source of great concern that another term which appears to be teetering on the edge of this pit is "human rights". So this is my humble offering of explanation as to why human rights matter.

The impression which a great deal too many politicians and media outlets seem to be able to pull off is that human rights are a foolish wet liberal concept which was doomed from the start, and is only used as an excuse for the state to grow, the EU to take over, and convicted paedophiles to roam free. This is impossibly far from the truth.

Human rights are, by definition, rights which apply to all humans equally. They mean that the justice system cannot favour a certain group of people over another, but that we are all treated fairly by the law. They hold the state and the government responsible towards every one of their citizens, not just the elite. They ensure that no group of people is ever considered just a means to an end by another group. 

The alternative to human rights is legal rights- rights which are provided by and remain subject to the wishes of the state. The concept of legal rights means that what you are worth, and to what extent you are protected by the law, depends on the whim of whoever is running the country at the time. It also mean that different rights could be dispersed to different groups of people.

The absence of constitutional, inalienable human rights leaves people at the complete mercy of their government. To that extent, without human rights, liberal democracy cannot exist, and the ideology of the Magna Carta/French and American revolutions/Enlightenment cannot be put into practice.

It frustrates me that so many people take for granted the right to freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to openly practice a religion, the right to education and healthcare and decent working conditions- and yet sneer at human rights like some irrelevant fringe concept. Or worse, they know more or less exactly what human rights entail, and still want to deny them to others. How many people have we heard claiming that those of the Islamic faith are somehow too dangerous to be allowed to exist in liberty, that somehow allowing Muslims to speak openly as we do is a threat to all we hold dear?
Actually, I'll blog more about human rights + Islamophobia another time. It's too much to stick on the end of another blog post.

Basically, every time you call David Cameron a wanker, every time you apply for a job without your personal and spiritual life being scrutinised, every time you walk past a policeman without him bashing your head in for no reason- thank human rights. That the people who have worked for hundreds of years to make rights for humans a recognised thing. And don't belittle their efforts by taking a Daily Mail, or even a Telegraph stance on the matter.


(Apologies for the anger. I was always going to do a slightly angry blog once in a while.)

That's so Orwellian!

Have you noticed how, like, every single gosh darn politician and activist in the entire known universe has, at one point, tried to compare their opponents to the Big Brother regime in Orwell's 1984? It seems we have found a new "reductio ad Hitlerium" - "reductio ad Orwellium". Reducing something to sound like an Orwellian nightmare because you don't have anything more intelligent to say.

1984 is among the most potent and hugely intelligent commentaries on politics and human nature in the last 100 years. But that doesn't mean by making reference to it, your argument suddenly becomes cleverer. It usually has the opposite effect, because such references are hardly ever used thoughtfully and constructively, even by clever people. People don't follow such arguments through rationally, they just tag THEREFORE IT IS LIKE ORWELL on the end of their as-of-yet vaguely sensible argument against a thing, which is idiotic on, like, every level. One hilarious example surfaced on the BBC News Site Commenting Melarkey after the public-place-smoking-ban in 2007. As I recall, it was pretty much like "restricting when and where people can smoke? What's next, huh? CAMERAS IN OUR BEDROOMS?!"

Basically, reductio ad Orwelliums are one of those ridiculous shortcuts for getting out of making a proper argument (like the word extremism). They should stop being used as of now by everyone. Or there may be dire consequences. I mean, there's only a few short steps between lazy debating and THE THOUGHT POLICE!!!

P.S. I know I didn't coin the term "reductio ad Orwellium". So don't be all like "plagarisererer!!!!" on my ass.

P. P. S. It strikes me at this time that "that's so Orwellian!" is actually quite a sassy-sounding phrase. 

"What a beautiful baby! She'll make a delightful return on the national economy!"

So lately, people have been doing something that annoys me.

Whenever people talk about things like student fees or crime (two completely different things, actually, but never mind), they often refer to their fellow human beings in terms of what kind of economical or social benefit they're going to have for the country. As in, "people are doing degrees which don't get them into useful jobs! how does the economy benefit from such people going to uni?" or "thieves should be death-penalitied! what kind of benefit are people like that going to have for society?".*

*both actual real things I have heard people say, albeit paraphrased. No lie.

When I hear arguments like this, I'm reminded of Immanuel Kant's second categorical imperative. Kant says that it is a universal moral obligation to never view a human being as a means to an end- they are always an end in itself.
There are two broad reasons why I think a more Kantian attitude is desperately needed right now. One is a bleeding-heart-liberal-hippy reason, the other is a logic-based reason.

The bleeding-heart-hippy-liberal reason (because I am a hippy-liberal-bleeding-heart, live with it) is that people are people. They aren't numbers or inputs or outputs or investments. Every one of those people you just dismissed as uneconomical ("you" being the fictional person I am currently arguing with, named Leonard) is real breathing human being with hopes and fears and emotions etc. It's immoral and unhealthy to allow your perception of any person be completely determined by your own want and needs; even when you claim those wants and needs to be those of society. Because really, when people like you, Leonard, say "but how are these people going to benefit society/the economy?" it's generally a euphemism for "how are they going to benefit me?"
I admit that the government has to be rather more cold-hearted than would be ideal when passing economic policies, and, well, laws in general. I know they can't give people everything they want, or even everything they need (to paraphrase John Green). But there is a lot of room for improvement when it's comes to the government's view of the citizens they serve. There is plenty of space within the realms of reason for politicians to have a more people-based than money-based perspective. And what the government has to do is certainly no excuse for non-country-running people to have an attitude like Leonard's.

The second, more logical reason, is that this attitude of basing people's worth on their contributions to everyone else is irrational and ultimately self-destructive.
Society exists to benefit large groups of individuals. It is, in essence, a product of people's recognition that they can achieve more for everyone involved if they work together. Most (non-totalitarian) states today work on the principle that you have the right to take what you need from the collective, and the responsibility to contribute what you can afford to it.
So society and the individual work on this give-and-take basis. This presents a number of problems to Leonard's attitude.
Firstly, if society exists to benefit the individual, but we assess individuals on their contribution to society, than that makes everything a circular process. The individual exists to contribute to the collective, but the collective society has no reason to exists if it doesn't benefit individuals. This makes everything confused, and society becomes an essentially meaningless excersise.
Leonard can of course get round this by saying that demanding society's reaping of a person's fruits, we ensure we benefit a greater number of individuals. But then, what right do we have to demand their contribution? Going with the student fees thing, if we aren't going to accommodate a prospective student's ability to improve their lives, how do we have the right to demand they get a job and help the economy?
Similarly, if a government isn't going to support people in making their lives better, than it simply isn't doing it's job. The government has a responsibility to all of it's citizens, and higher education and reform-based sentencing for prisoners is as much a part of it's job as the National Health Service.
Basically, the government isn't in the business of doing anything for anyone. But if there's something someone can do for themselves, the government should act to support that. Otherwise there is very little point to having a state at all.

That essentially sums up what I'm trying to say. In my mind, Leonard has just agreed with everything I said and joined the Green party. For everyone else, feel free to continue the discussion with me.

VIDEO: Dara O'Briain on Islam (sort of)

Mr. O'Brien (Irish stand-up comedian, for those unaware) makes a really important point on the Western perspective on Islam from 1:44. Though the rest of the video is  thoughtful and funny and worth watching too.

Also, I'll be putting up my first proper blog post in ages later tonight, you will be pleased/horrified/apathetic to know.

VIDEO-LINK: Why have a Royal Family anyway?!

I thought this was quite an interesting answer:

Don't Ask Don't Tell repealed! Hooray!

So I know this is a day out of date, but I thought it was well worth posting a celebratory blog post to mark the ending of the US military's "don't ask don't tell" policy, which forbade gay or bisexual US soldiers from revealing their sexual orientation, on pain of dismissal.

Don't ask don't tell (DADT) was introduced by Bill Clinton as a replacement of the previous policy, where gays were forbidden from serving in the army, and commanders had the power to question soldiers on their sexuality. It was seen as a compromise, as LGBTers could then join the army provided they stayed in the closet. But it was still a discriminatory measure against gay people, and just a downright silly policy to have.

Being sexually attracted to members of your own gender does not have any affect on your ability to handle a gun or drive a tank. It does not make you any less loyal to your country. It does not make you any less of a soldier. Now, finally, the US Government and the Pentagon have recognised that.

What is also perversely encouraging is the desperate lengths antigays are having to go to condemn this measure. Take this guy, for instance. Yeeesh.
I've said it (or something similar) before; the more ridiculous the right-wingers sound when speaking against gay rights, the further we know the gay rights movement has advanced.

Here's to many more progay advances in the future.

Self-Confidence

Ego is a fickle thing. Often, our sense of self-worth is fragile and unstable, and the consequences of having a damaged ego are so painful that we cannot help but be ego-centric, placing the protection of our self-confidence above all else. Or else, we give up entirely on ever having a healthy ego, and the tunnel we are in seems to collapse and becomes a sealed cavern.

Getting the balance right between caring for your emotional health and caring for others', being confident in who you are yet not arrogant and self-centred, is an issue I think we struggle with for the whole of our earthly existence. Chances are it gets easier into adulthood as our lives become more stable, but I wouldn't know.

I'm hardly at the level where I can sufficiently lecture others on "how to like yourself", but there's a few things I've picked up on the matter which may turn out to be worth sharing. So here we go.

It's difficult to get confident until you act confident. To establish a place in the world where you are comfortable requires talking to people. Like, a lot. You need to have enough faith in yourself to share things about you and your life with the wider universe. You need to be able to reach out to people without fear of being stuck down. For me, that's one of the most daunting things, like, ever.
So, as difficult as it is, you need to act like you like yourself at least a little bit during the lengthy process of socialising. You need to block out the voice in your head telling you everyone hates you and act as though you know people are interested in what you have to say.
If it's of any help, I find pretty much anyone can be interesting if they try hard enough. Also, finding the right people who will find you interesting also helps. You're not going to have much success talking about manga and cosplaying to someone who's life revolves around football- at least not until you build up a really good "delivery technique", anyway.

Don't spend your time panicking about what people are thinking about you. I'm not denying that other people's views on you have a certain significance, but you don't want to fall into the trap of spending your energy on worrying about people's approval and not on making yourself into someone they can approve. Generally, trying to do things purely because you think they'll get people to like you is counter-productive. It comes across as superficial and irritating. You are at your best when doing things you love doing for themselves. So, do them.

Focus on the long term. Ego is like economics, in that you can either establish a model of rapid growth and decline, or one of slower, long-term growth. Try to harness your energies into things you love doing that will stay with you long-term and gradually help build you up, rather than more superficial temporary things like the latest fashion or a boyfriend/girlfriend.

At the end of the day, your view of you is up to you. Pleasing others will only take you so far. You need to find away of being a person you yourself approve of if your ego is going to get anywhere significant. Other peoples views, whilst well worth taking into account, are not everything. At the core of it, you need to like yourself because of who and what you are.

You are a diamond. In, like, the whole of the mass media, and also in the blog post, there's all this stuff about changing yourself and making yourself better. Which probably isn't helping the whole self-worth thing. The way I see it, every person is a rough diamond. Everyone already has the things they need to be good people with healthy egos, but those qualities need honing. So that's what I mean when I talk about changing yourself, and it's probably a good way to interpret all the other stuff too.

That's it. Well, it isn't. But it's all I have right now. Hopefully you've found it some kind of useful.

Until next time, mein freunden...  

Molehills are boring! I WANT HIMALAYAS!

I've been thinking about the human attitude to doing good stuff, and I've had a thought. To (hopefully) explain it, I'm going to thrust a fictional scenario in your direction.

A man has put on an event to help send money out to starving African children. The event is one of those where there isn't a ticket price, but a lovely big donation bucket to add to as you walk in. A woman walks up to the entrance and puts 50p in the bucket. The man, who is standing behind the bucket for some reason, asks her why she put so little in the bucket, and does she really think that's enough. She responds by explaining she is a recently-single mother with three kids to look after struggling to keep her job, and can't afford to donate a great deal more. The man's reply is something along the lines of "the Africans are suffering too! Think about them!"

The thing I want to get across is that the man isn't interested in the woman's problems, even though he has met her and she would be much easier for him to help than the random African kids. He's more concerned about the people he's never met in a land far far away.

As a song from Evita claims, "distance lends enchantment". It's so much more romantic to try and help those far away in situations we can barely even imagine.
There's no logical reason for wanting to help the far-away as opposed to the close. The single unemployed mother down the road is going to make much better use of your ten pounds than Unicef is, since the money is more concentrated. You're not sharing your donation out between hundreds of millions.

But maybe that's just it. Maybe it's the sheer scope of poverty in the third world which makes it such an attractive cause to throw money at. I think it's perhaps down to that fundamental human drive to want to be a part of, and contribute to, something bigger than ourselves. Often, we interpret that as "the bigger the cause, the better!" Forgetting that every big problem is made of lots of small ones. The devil is in the detail. (Or some similar expression.)

Humans are often accused of "making mountains out of molehills". I think a just as common attitude is to overlook the molehills and run straight for the tallest and most exciting mountains, and probably tripping up in the process.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that we are more attracted to what we see as bigger problems. And I obviously I think trying to improve lives in the third world is good. It just interests me.

Gay Marriage in Britain by 2015?!

According to this, Prime Minister David Cameron is "emphatically [whatever that means] in favour" of gay marriage, and confident of making it a thing by 2015.

Ed Milliband, the Labour leader, and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, are also explicitly pro- gay marriage.

The SNP Scottish government have already introduced a consultation paper on SSM, and are certainly close enough to make the Catholic church react with the usual right-wing nonsense. The Greens, obviously, are in favour. UKIP have never made a statement either way, which is probably the best we can hope for.

Now, I'm all for caution when it comes to getting excited about legislation which might never happen. But when the Tories, of all people, are wanting to bring same sex marriage in, and the only party explicitly against it are the fricking BNP, you've gotta be at least a bit hopeful.

Obviously, there will be a downpour of rhetoric from Britain's religious leaders, Cameron still has to overcome his socially conservative backbenchers, and we have no idea what's going to happen in the Lords.

But still. This is pretty exciting stuff.

I'll be keeping a much closer eye on the issue from now onwards, and will keep you lot posted (not that you need it).

Fingers crossed! 

For The Politically Interested And The Politically Disenchanted:

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party leader, delivered a fantastic speech at their Autumn conference. And, here it is, for your enjoyment: 

Dear Bullied Teenagers,

Hey you guys. (and everyone else reading)

I've wanted to say something to you lot about what you're going though for ages, but I've always held back, because I know nothing I say will ever really be enough. So I apologise in advance for the inadequacy, but, as a "veteran" bully victim and Person of Ever-Constant Insecurity, this is what I have to offer.

So, I know school sucks, because you're being condemned every day for who and what you are. I know you're probably (though not definitely) reacting by hating yourself and lying awake at night wondering what's wrong with you and how to sort yourself.

I don't know what they've decided is wrong with you, whether it's how you dress, or how you speak, or some physical feature of your body. I don't know what you'd change about yourself if you could. I don't know what your insecurity homes in on when you look in the mirror.

Just know that we all go through it. We all know we're not perfect, and most of us react to that by assuming that means we're not good enough. Know that those mocking you, laughing at you, kicking you, degrading you, treating you like shit because of something you are generally aren't thinking your flaws. They're thinking about their own, and have decided to make you the person they take that out on. That's unforgivable of them, but again, we all do it to some extent.

Know that perfect is not the same as good enough. All that your flaws prove is that you aren't perfect, but that's irrelevant. Imperfect people do awesome stuff all the time, everywhere. Everyone you admire is imperfect. Everyone who has ever improved the world or the human experience is imperfect. Your job isn't to be perfect, and never was.
So when that part of you tells you about you flaws over and over again, try to remember that everyone else has roughly the same amount of flaws too. There's no reason not to try and overcome or minimalise the effect of some of those flaws, but they aren't what's most important about you. They aren't what defines you as you.

Also, your job isn't to deal with the bullying. You're going to come up with a lot of advice, either directly or through works of fiction, that says your job is to put the bullies in their place and reform them or outfight them or whatever. But that can't work. There are too many insecure hotheads in a given secondary school to stop bullying from happening, and the causes of bullying are too fundamental for you to overcome them with karate or quick wit.
I know that sounds pessimistic, but it actually isn't. Once we get rid of the unattainable goal of making bullying stop happening, you can focus on what's really important- surviving it. Because that's what humanity needs you to do. We need you to come out of the other side of the sucky period known as secondary/high school alive and well and still "yourself" enough to offer the gifts/benefits you have to give the world.

That's about all I have to say. Just try and wade through the shit, and I'll wait here on the other side with a towel for when you leave school. Deal?

Much Love,
Sam Copson

Peer Pressure

I've been thinking a lot about peer pressure lately. There's a lot to be desired from our attitudes towards it.

Peer pressure is defined as any influence on a person's behaviour by their social group. As such, it is hardly the inherent force of evil most people seem to think it is these days. As always: the hyper-individualist attitude of "don't listen to what anyone thinks ever!" is just as damaging as the conformist attitude of "if you're different in any way you deserved to be mocked about it".

We all know what the problem is with the conformist attitude, so I won't go into it here.

But the problem with the other response, blocking every kind of peer pressure out and telling yourself that no-one's view of you matters, is highly problematic. As a human being, pretty much everything you do ever is going to affect other people in some way. And when you have power like that, you always have the moral responsibility to use it for the most possible good/least possible bad. You cannot effectively enact that responsibility if you are not in tune with what other people think about the things you do.
To put that in real terms- if you don't listen to other people's views on your relationship, you're more likely to hurt your boyfriend or girlfriend. If you don't listen to other people's views on your attitude, you're more likely to end up inadvertently snubbing people you actually like, causing offence, and ending up with no friends. And so on.
The other benefit of peer pressure is it provides you with greater awareness of other people, and helps you to develop social skills. This really applies to younger children; but those who paid no attention to what other people thought early in life generally have more problems with starting relationships (of all kinds) later in life.

So, with that in mind, the big question is this: where do we draw the line?

While we must allow peer pressure to shape us in some way, it's all too easy to take that too far, too. A lot of the times, people's criticism of you stems only from their own struggling egos, and a desire to crawl up the social ladder. As such, this criticism has precious little to do with you, in any real sense.
So how do we let ourselves be guided by the constructive without taking the inconsequential to heart?

I think the issue lies in how you process the pressure from your peers that you receive. The people who become desperate, insecure approval-slaves are the ones who have a gut reaction to "other people think this = I must do it". This is wrong, simply because people are often wrong. No, the healthy response to peer pressure is to take it in rationally, and make us of it as just another factor in the ongoing process of self-reflection.
In other words, what we should be doing is this:
peer pressure => reflection => = take in other factors => more reflection => conclusion => action
When all too often we simply do:
peer pressure => action

So, that's that.
Don't take everything other people say about you to heart, but do take it into account in a healthy and constructive way.

I think that's the closest I'm going to get to a satisfying summary on the matter.

Sorry for the lack of posts recently (because I'm sure you were all emotional wrecks without your regular Mouth of Copson fix), I plan to blog more in the days to come.

Ciao! 

So, Should We Try To Turn Gays Straight?

So a common issue for discourse between social liberals and social conservatives is whether homosexuality is an inevitable characteristic, or whether it is a dysfunctional phase that one can overcome if one is to take the right steps. In other words, whether gays are gay for life, or whether they can stop being gay with the use of what is known as "ex-gay therapy".

Therapy to help/convince homosexuals become heterosexual is one of the most bitterly controversial points in modern politics, particularly in the US of America. Left-wingers and others who believe homosexuals are naturally so, state that ex-gay therapy is psychologically damaging and leads to a feeling of inadequacy, self-loathing and, all too often, suicide. Those who cling to the belief that homosexuality is an inherently unnatural state for any human to be in assert that trying to turn straight is the only healthy thing for homosexuals to do, and that to advise them otherwise is doing them a disservice.

Allow me to take you through why I think what I think about homosexuality.

There is vast diversity among all human characteristics, physical, mental and behavioural. As such, it is unhelpful to have the knee-jerk reaction of labeling any minority characteristics as "dysfunctions". We have to keep an open mind about all rarities, and assess all types of people fairly without automatically thinking a difference from the norm necessarily constitutes a deficit.
So, with that in mind, lets begin our assessment of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is the desire to form sexual or romantic relationships with members of the same sex as yourself.
This is open to two points of contention which could lead to it being declared a bad thing. Homosexual relations cannot produce children, and are interpreted as being condemned by certain religions.

The first argument states that either because a homosexual relationship cannot produce children, there is no point to it, or because people who engage exclusively in homosexual relationships cannot produce children, there is no point to them.
To say that people waste their lives if they don't produce any children is beyond ridiculous, as I have blogged about before. People can benefit the world and the human experience in many other and sometimes better ways than creating children.
And I don't think saying relationships are pointless if no babies are made makes any sense either. People are designed to bond sexually and romantically for a great many social and physical benefits, which help to advance the species and which have nothing to do with reproduction. And these apply to homosexual relationships as easily as they do to heterosexual ones. I don't think you can look at the natural world and possibly say that God/nature intended every single member of a species to make children; many animal species from insects right up to mammals have social structures where only a few individuals are required to produce offspring. And those who do not produce offspring have other responsibilities, which they are held to by their relationships with the other members of their social groups.

So the second point of contention was the religion thing.
Here's the deal. Whether you follow a certain religion is up to you. It's your choice. I don't think anyone can say that to follow all the rules in the Bible or Qua'ran is inherent in human nature. We don't have the innate instincts to stone prostitutes, marry the first person we sleep with or devote the final seventh of our week to prayer. And if following these rules was inherent, there would have been no reason to write them down and have religious leaders teach them to people. So where on earth do religious right-wingers get the idea that the Bible is a guide to innate human nature?
And remembering what this post is supposed to be about, ex-gay therapy, it is not up to anyone to use therapy to try and Christianise, Muslimify, or Hindufy you. Muslims don't counsel people to help them overcome their pork-eating tendencies. Christians don't provide therapy for anyone with the overwhelming desire to work on Sundays. Jews don't counsel people to eat kosher. Etc, etc, etc.

As such, I don't think there is anything about homosexuality which allows it to be considered a dysfunction or mental illness.

But proponents of ex-gay therapy will say, what's the harm? Why not try to help people turn straight if that's what they want?
Well, there's actually quite a lot of harm.
Ex-gay ministries tell gay people that homosexuality, which is part of them, is evil. They teach them that as homosexuals, they have fallen short of the standard required by human beings. Well firstly, this is a lie, as if we follow the logic above, we agree there is no harm in being homosexual. Secondly, it's an extremely harmful lie. The psychological damage caused by being told you are evil, inadequate, inherently harmful to the world, is immeasurable.
It might be some kind of okay if the therapy then proceeded to turn its patients completely straight, thus removing the burden it placed upon them. But, it doesn't do that. Because ex-gay therapy almost never, ever, actually works. Yes, there have been cases where someone has gone into a re-orientation therapy clinic and come out able to have successful relationships with women, but it is such a vast minority. Success rates are rarely cited as above 20%, and when they are, they nearly always collapse in the face of further research. And you have to consider how many patients were actually bisexual, how many are simply repressing their homosexuality, how many were never gay in the first place but went because their parents were concerned with "effeminate" behaviour, etc, etc.

So, what we have in the vast majority of cases with patients of reorientation therapy is this.
1. They are consistently told that homosexuality is evil and wrong.
2. They are consistently told that this therapy will work, that sexuality can be changed, that God's love will save them from their gayness, etc.
3. After weeks, months or years of therapy, they are still gay.
Can you imagine what a toll that would take on the ever-fragile (usually young) human ego? The failed therapy will open the floodgates to a thousand feelings of failure, self-loathing, even feeling rejected by God himself, perhaps. They will feel they are a mistake, that they are fatally flawed and evil. And that is entirely the fault of practitioners of re-orientation therapy.
Ex-gay therapy is damaging thousands of young people every year. It's practitioners impose psychological scars on people which often last for life. To be frank, it is wrong on every possible level.

Please, reader, protect the young people of the western world from being bullied and scarred by self-proclaimed "psychologists" trying to further a political agenda, and speak out against ex-gay therapy at every opportunity you get.

It's Okay To Fail Sometimes

So a few hours ago, I posted a big brash blog thing about the potential of humans and how we can all be awesome if only we are to try. But I forgot to address something important, i.e, what inhibits people from trying so often. And that, I think, is fear of failure.

In this world, it's easy to think of life as though we are being scored on how many times we succeed and how many times we fail. Like there's some cosmic tally controlled by Mr. Society, who gives you a big black mark every time you do try and do something, and subsequently fail.

At primary school, we are often told that "winning's not important" and "at least you tried, that's what's matters". But it's difficult for these ideas to stick, primarily because those same adults telling us those things usually don't appear to be putting that idea into practice. And also because not long after we are exposed to the intensely competitive, ego-driven world of secondary school, which causes a lot of our primary school values to be swept away for good.

But I would propose that fear of failure is perhaps the single most unhelpful emotion humans have. To explain, I'm going to try and imagerise how I think trying, success and failure work:

Before you try, you are at ground level. In neutralville. Then, when you try, you are attempting to build blocks to somewhere better. If you succeed, you get to the better place. If you fail, you simply end up where you were before. So failing isn't actually negative in the traditional sense- trying and failing doesn't make anything worse than it was before.

Which is why fear of failure is totally unhelpful. The purpose of fear is to protect you from harm, like, "run away from that ferocious bear!" "don't touch that red-hot garden hoe!" "don't climb into the back of that man's van!" But fear of failure doesn't do that, because failing doesn't hurt you. It's doesn't make anything worse, it just stops things from being better, temporarily.

So if you don't try, you will remain where you are. If you try, then yes, there's a chance you'll fail, but the consequences of failing are the same consequences of not trying in the first place; and, crucially, there is a chance you will succeed, and things will be better.

I know of course, that none of this has much bearing on why people are actually afraid of failure. That is (as far as I can tell) because we are exposed to endless scrutiny as human beings from our equally insecure peers, and what we are really afraid of is the inevitable mockery and belittlement that will come from failing.

This is a difficult fear to transverse. But it's important to remember that people don't generally care about your flaws whilst mocking them. It just makes them feel good for a while. In a week, a day, perhaps an hour- most of those who mocked you will have completely forgotten what it was about. What they are saying (in this context) has no bearing whatsoever on who or what you actually are, or what they actually think about you. Being mocked for failing says absolutely nothing about you, and absolutely everything about the one or several mocking you.

Failing is fine; as is imperfection. Something doesn't have to be perfect in order to be beautiful- which is just as well, because perfection is pretty much imaginary.
For example- I know that this blog post has flaws. It's bizarrely ambiguous, and uses the word "mocking" and it's derivatives far too much. But that's not going to stop me posting it on the internet for potentially (except not actually) all of humanity to see. Because I quite like the point I'm making, and have hope that this post will vaguely help at least someone as they traipse through life.

Just to clarify, this is not a raving of "I am good at this, you should be as good as me". I am crippled by fear of failure far too often. Actually, it's worth noting in general that whenever I do everyday-life-made-better type posts I'm always at least one-third talking to myself. So, yeah.

Point being, do not let fear of failure stop you from doing absolutely anything. Because failure, in the vast majority of cases, has no consequences worth losing sleep over.

Don't Forget To Be Awesome

So, here's the deal.

The human brain is pretty much the most complicated, advanced and fantastic single object in the universe.

The human body has evolved to a level where it can manipulate the environment around it like no species before it.

In short, humans are powerful.

And we not so much as can, but will use that power to either make the world better or worse.

I know it's easy to get intimidated by the humongous vastness, perplexing complexity, terrifying fragility and downright strangeness of the world.

But, remember: you are at the same evolutionary level at the people who founded philosophy, the men who first harnessed electricity, all the people who came up with the various ideas in politics, those who built Rome, those who built the aeroplane, those who sanitised water the first time, etc, etc.

In order to excersise your potential, you need to be aware of the awesome around you and the awesome within you.
The awesomeness in the world shows that the world is something worth improving, worth defending, worth contributing to. Because it's amazing and beautiful.
The awesomeness within you, your power as a human being and your unique abilities and virtues as an individual, reminds you that it is well within your ability to make good things happen.

In short, there is no excuse for apathy.

Many things are good, and you can make them better.

The slogan of the Nerdfighter community (the best online community in the world ever) is DFTBA- Don't Forget To Be Awesome. The reason this is such a fantastic slogan, is that whether you are awesome or not is down to whether or not you choose to be.
No-one is intrinsically un-awesome. You have fifty trillion cells and billions of neural relays to make use of, as well as a well of intelligence and thought processing. All you need is the will to kick your latent awesome into gear, and make the world better by creating, defending, changing.

So, go for stuff. Don't let your perceived flaws cripple you. You are well equipped to deal with life.

You, my friend, are a bucket of awesome waiting to be thrown onto the world.

Now, GO!