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.