Kill Screen Mag, Josiah Harrist the Piece of Shit, and dissemination of info

On 28 May 2012, Kill Screen Mag–a gaming site–decided to run this verbal diarrhea written by one Josiah Harrist, an expat whitey scum who acts exactly the way you’d expect an expat whitey scum to act.

The biggest shock in coming back to America after a year teaching in Asia was when the plane touched down in central Texas. The wheels had barely connected with the asphalt when the cabin collectively breathed a sigh and everyone took out their smartphones and iPads. A chorus of tones, email notifications, and texts filled the cabin. I’m not in Laos anymore, was all I could think.

Ah, funny, because you know what I see in a plane touching down in Thailand? Smartphones being whipped out. Throughout the flight? People using tablets. Yes, including iPads. In fact, the sight of iPads in general isn’t exactly an uncommon thing walking around here. It’s strange, it’s almost as if we have a middle class or something.

Living in the Third World puts one back 30, 50, 1,000 years.

Wow, I didn’t realize we’d already invented the time machine.

When I was seven, our family lived in the middle of a slum in Java, Indonesia overlooking a wide vista of rice paddies and farms.

He neglects to mention that his piece-of-shit expat parents brought him there because they chose to; they were there by choice, out of free will, not under duress or necessity but probably due to a flagging self-esteem that needed some boosting by the ability to gloat over poverty as experienced by brown people. They raised their kid “in the middle of a slum” because they wanted to. At a guess, they were fucking missionaries, which as we all know are among some of the most disgusting slime on Earth.

Westerners don’t quite get this, but random shitty comments about THIRDWORLDIA!1!! crop up everywhere, often in places you least expect. For example, I was reading this review of a crappy romance and what do I see?

One of the only good things about this book was the full-text copy/paste of “Joseph Meets Cady” from the previous book. Kinda like one of those dead-virus vaccinations you get before travelling to a developing country.

If you think sexism is the background radiation of your life, try being from a developing nation on top of that and combine. Except you’ll find shitty comments about THIRDWORLDIA!1!! even among those who profess to be about social justice online, because most of those are from the first world and can’t look further than their noses. I’ve seen no real great outrage about Josiah Harrist’ shitpiece, whereas their other piece about sexism or something got plenty of attention. First-world feminists understand misogyny; first-worlders in general though? They don’t understand why Harrist’s turd is offensive. It flies right under the radar. Nobody remarks on it. Hooray.


Kuzhali Manickavel, whom I hear is a really rad writer, wrote “y u mad tho? cuz I aint even mad” which is about book fetishists and the paper-book vs ebook divide.

I’ve always been a little flabbergasted by the good folks who have very strong anti-ebook feelings, especially those who haven’t actually read one and on further investigation, one discovers that they aren’t really sure what an ebook is, they just know they reallyreally hate them and they suck. I know I’m being superracist here but it seems like these illustrious folk always say the same thing-
‘One needs to be able to touch, smell, lick, and fornicate with certain parts of the book’s binding in order to experience the real and truly complete reading experience. Anything else is not reading. Also you can read the words on the pages if you want but this is not necessary.’
Ok first, wow. Second, am I missing something with this booksmell thing? Because I feel like a lot of the books I have been unfortunate enough to smell somehow managed to be sour, bitter and kind of like musty ass and once I may have accidentally inhaled a small silverfish also. This may have been because most of these books were not second or third hand books but eleventy-twelvty hand books which spent a large amount of time on the pavement and people may have peed on them at some point also. Which led me to think, hay maybe this aspect of molesting your reading material as part of your reading experience is actually a privilege. I say this as someone who has often not been able to get my hands on “real” books, but I could access ebooks and podcasted books which were available even in my tiny corner of the world and often for totes free. I think that eating and rubbing a book all over your body may be one of many reading experiences. I don’t think it’s the only one, the real one, the true one, the authentic one, the original one, or the best one ever. Not all of us have the means to buy and do that to our books. Many of us may not want to do that also. I don’t think that means that we are not reading because we are not reading like you are.

Now this is going to be tricky, but let’s suspend the first-world knee-jerk reaction for a moment–yes, yes, your thing with class; yes, yes, your thing with Kindles being a middle-class thing: but be quiet, your thing with class in the west is actually irrelevant to this discussion, which is not about first-world access. In fact, the moment you spit out “Kindle” you’ve voided your credibility and relevance, because amazingly enough, the Kindle is neither the primary means by which people read ebooks worldwide… nor is it widely sold globally. Shut that mouth. This isn’t about you. I’m not sure why you are so entrenched in the idea that the Kindle/Nook is the only way anyone reads ebooks to start with anyway.

Yes, everyone in this conversation is a citizen of a developing nation.

Let’s assume, for a moment, that we in Thirdworldia do some of us have access to electricity, computers, and the Internet. Yes, this is true! Why we even have plumbing and public transport, and phone booths and stuff. I know: as Manickavel says we’re supposed to all be swimming in raw sewage, but even that gets tedious after a while so we get out of the raw sewage and get on our electronic wonders and do our things and have Internet opinions. This is not to dismiss as irrelevant those without access to magic box devices things with the screens kind of like tee-vees and stuff. Rather, keep in mind that there exists a stratum where you can have access to the magic boxes and the world-wide-web but you don’t have access to physical foreign-language books (or even local-language books), because they’re too expensive, sometimes because they’re expensive and imported, which makes them very pricey indeed.

Ebooks can be pirated; physical books cannot. Even secondhand physical books don’t have the sheer distribution, and are often still pretty expensive. You, the first-worlder, may be about to open your mouth and bleat something stupid and self-serving about how piracy is evil, but shut your trap for a minute and recognize that your copyrights are irrelevant to us and that you shouldn’t expect the rest of the world to respect your petty, stupid copyrights when you respect nothing owned by the rest of the world and your government regularly strong-arms or bombs the rest of the world without consequences, so sorry about that, but expecting anyone outside the west to care about your book copyrights is naive. Keep in mind, also, that there exists vast institutions that enforce copyrights as a tool of imperialism; that these same institutions ensure that vast amounts of consumer spending flow out of our countries into yours but not the other way around. The publishing industry, or indeed any creative industry, in the west doesn’t generally serve our interests–we don’t need it, it doesn’t give us any money, it only drains cash from here to over there. And if your books are localized here, you’ll get the licensing fees anyway.

If you still demand that we give a shit about your copyrights at this point, consider that it’s downright sociopathic to do so. Yes, I buy books from authors I want to support, but in the grand scheme of things I don’t really care about the industry as a whole. Why should I? No, don’t say “basic human decency” because see the thing about imperialism and economic bullying and all the rest. When you learn basic human decency, you’ll be able to expect it from others. Not before.

So, back to the way we read ebooks! What’s cheaper than e-readers, laptops, netbooks, and desktops? Smartphones.

Here the westerner may break into the temptation of barking something unintelligible, as occidentals do. They believe everywhere in the world functions just like their country does, and so they’ll say: but smartphones are a sign of–hiss it!–privilege! Only the middle-class and the rich can afford it! It costs so much every month to keep one! YOU PRIVILEGED MIDDLE-CLASS ASSHOLE, YOU THINK EVERYONE IN THIRDWORLDIA CAN BURN MONEY LIKE YOU, HUH? WHAT ABOUT THE STARVING INFANTS!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!! and similarly incoherent testeria.

Fortunately, our cellular business model isn’t broken: here you buy a phone from anywhere, pay for that phone, and your carrier won’t force a data plan on you. You pay as much, or as little, as you need. This means there are phones as cheap as $88 (~70 EUR) with a full suite of functionalities–camera, media player, why indeed they often run Android (with complete access, licensed and not, to the Google Play Store). That’s right! These phones can handle ebooks. They’re also, well, phones. The ownership and use of cellphones have very long ago ceased to be a luxury reserved for the elite. Indeed, not everyone may afford this, but when you consider that you don’t need an actual computer and can cram all your information access into your phone, which costs under $90, you will find that the barrier to entry is much lower. A working-class Thai citizen can afford a phone like this (or secondhand which also means cheaper: ~$70).

She may not be using it to read ebooks, because those haven’t really caught on yet and there are book rentals, but she’ll have a very small computing device in hand with which she can do a bunch of things. And smartphones are desired, because people want to take pictures, use social networks, read news, check the weather, use chat clients. Keep in mind that I’m not suggesting every single person here can afford one and that all 65m of us each tote a smartphone, but you’d be surprised how many do. Official statistics list a whopping 18.3m (28%) of us with Internet access in 2009 and broke 20m in 2011 with the number being possibly as high as 25m (38%). Per month, the cost of having voice/text/limited data access can be as little as $13 a month, and if you drop the 3G access, even less because smartphone users can just use WiFi hotspots.

For the price of a secondhand smartphone, about 7-8 brand-new books can be purchased. That’s it. If we keep to English-language books? Maybe 12 secondhand ones.

Again, this isn’t the final word on the subject and I can’t claim to speak for anyone, only make observations. I promise, however, that people really do buy cheap smartphones, it’s not that they are starving and I’m making up some consumer habit that doesn’t exist. As said, most use their smartphones for activities other than reading. But the tool is there, and a cheap smartphone is a far more cost-efficient way to read than buying physical books, and to receive information in general. The cheap smartphone thing moreover holds true for other countries as well: the Philippines, India (yes working-class Indians can afford them, now shut the fuck up), Malaysia, Indonesia, and I believe parts of Africa. The middle class in those countries and mine just go for… uhm… iPads and flagship smartphones, yes devices that cost $400-700. That’s why in passenger cabins those are what you will see. In Asian hands. Not just in the hairy paws of the Aryan master.

Leave a comment

81 Comments

  1. seanoapostrophehara

     /  June 3, 2012

    You know, I can walk down the street and find a wide vista of corn fields and farms. Oh my God, I’m living in the Third World and didn’t even know it! And I’m only 50 miles from Washington DC! If the Third World is here, then it’s everywhere. Ev-ery-where! There’s no escape.

    Seriously, who the hell thinks farmland is a sign of being in a “Third World” country? It’s like he’s saying it’s something dirty and shameful that civilized people like himself should have nothing to do with.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 3, 2012

      Food comes out of a magic box. Agriculture? PFFFFTTTT.

      • the twisted spinster

         /  June 3, 2012

        Speaking of raw sewage and Thirdworldia, I drive through farmland six days a week to get to my job in another town. Most of the farms here are “organic” farms which means they use manure instead of chemical fertilizer. Which means, yes, that during most of the growing season everything smells like shit. Also, there are a lot of Mennonite communities here, which means you’ll still see horse-and-buggy getups that aren’t just for tourists. I got stuck behind one on one of the larger roads here the other day. Also, there are a lot of run down towns and abandoned houses from previous economic downtimes when the people just fucked off elsewhere because no jobs and never came back. Even the advertisements say stuff like “here in the valley the money’s not great but the living is easy.” (This is a car ad I used to hear on the radio.) I wonder if this Harrist dude has ever been anywhere in his own country besides whatever city he now lives in. Lots of Americans haven’t and know about as much about their own country as they do Thailand.

        • acrackedmoon

           /  June 4, 2012

          Which means, yes, that during most of the growing season everything smells like shit.

          GIANT D:

        • the twisted spinster

           /  June 4, 2012

          D:D:

          And I haven’t said a word about skunks. Oh dear lord skunks. What’s black and white and red all over and will stink up your car when you drive past it? The corpse of a run-over skunk.

  2. janinmi

     /  June 3, 2012

    Thanks for the link to that post about the guy who bounced around Laos and other non-US countries, despite the fetidness of the ideas in the prose there. Ugh. I left a comment there. I spent a year in South Korea and I don’t recall ever thinking of it as a “Third-World” or “developing” country. Not better or worse than the US, just different. I like different. :)

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 4, 2012

      Excellent. Hope your comment won’t be deleted or something.

    • You got a reply to that comment, actually. It wasn’t from me, but you probably should respond to it.

      • acrackedmoon

         /  June 16, 2012

        What, that fuckwad’s patronizing bullshit?

        • Generally speaking, if you’re out to change attitudes and educate people about these kinds of things, isn’t respectful discourse part of that deal? If people essentially say, “I don’t understand what the problem is,” or think that you’re attacking a straw-man, isn’t it best to educate them about the nature of the problem, and why you’re not?

        • acrackedmoon

           /  June 16, 2012

          In that case, if I ever meet you in real life I’ll punch you in your worthless face, and I’ll expect you to afterward explain to me why it’s not okay to punch you in the face. You will be obliged to do this slowly, politely, and respectfully. If your explanation isn’t up to par, I will have the right to punch you in the face again, as many times as I like until your explanation is up to my satisfaction. If it never is, well, you don’t get to punch me back or object or file an assault charge. Because the onus is on you to educate me as to why punching your face hurts you.

          Deal? Give me a time and place. I’ll see if I know anyone in the area and ask them to meet you for the face-punching session, to which you will of course agree to beforehand in writing with all the aforementioned clauses. Hell, do you want your balls kicked in too? We can arrange that, as well.

  3. If you want to see “Third World,” you’ll find it a lot closer than 50 miles to Washington, D.C.

    • the twisted spinster

       /  June 4, 2012

      You’ll find it in Washington DC.

      • In fact, Washington has over three times the national average violent crime rate (1330.2 crimes per hundred thousand people, versus 403.6 for the country as a whole). So… yeah.

        • the twisted spinster

           /  June 4, 2012

          Actually, thinking about it, I’ll bet most “Third World” countries are way more peaceful and law-abiding than the average large American city.

        • acrackedmoon

           /  June 4, 2012

          US has a higher reported crime rate than China. China has a considerably bigger population. SO YEAH.

          (And, yeah, it’s really quite safe to live here generally–the US seems to me very violent and crime-ridden, as a country.)

        • the twisted spinster

           /  June 4, 2012

          It’s odd though, I usually felt quite safe in Miami, which is quite crime-ridden and violent, but that’s mostly because I was born there and had lived there all my life, and knew where not to go and what not to do, and also I was white and if not upper-middle-class yet hung out on the fringes of such, also I didn’t do drugs and in general tried to stay away from people and situations that could lead to disaster. A lot of crime in this country comes about from people just being fucking stupid with their lives and decisions, and from a general sense of entitlement that permeates the culture here as a whole. The media and political culture here foster this, so they can manipulate the population for power and profit. Believe me, the high crime and increasing racism and intolerance is just money in the bank for some parties here, and it’s to the advantage of our dear leaders that we are kept under control by fear. That’s why no one will really “do anything” about crime.

  4. Wait, back up the buggy train, you mean to tell me that developing nations can *gasp* afford things? But that some people are poor so they can’t afford those things? Like…virtually everywhere else in the world. Lies. Filthy, dirty lies! If developing nations have these things, then clearly they don’t need any form of aid and structural assistance. Next you’ll be telling me that Africa isn’t a monolith of dark people that live in one country. Surely.

    But for serious, it boggles the mind that people can still think this way. It’s just so weird and bizarre that people think that all progress is a zero sum game where they can’t like what they like. They must proselytize and convert. It’s a elitist tribalism that have these harsh, dark lines that you can’t cross or else you’ll be “other”. It just means that people have to perceive themselves to be special by the easiest method that doesn’t actually challenge them to do something worthy of being special. The world is a scary place that they don’t understand and if they can’t put it into a compartment, if they can’t dehumanize it so they don’t have to think about it and they can simply reflexively dismiss it, then clearly it can’t be a real thing. Just another way of discounting the many ways people thrive and carve out the world in the way they need it.

    I’ve had this discussion about authors and piracy and ebooks. And most of them don’t understand the concept of “accessibility”. I have no idea how books are marketed outside of the US, but if it’s anything like movies, then yeah, of course there will be pirates…and also dragon. And people whining about copyright…jeez, man. I’m working on my phd and my research is taxpayer funded, which means it belongs to everyone, but most research articles and journals are behind a cost-prohibitive paywall. So ya know what, author of a book I may or may not pay for? At least your work gets out there and people can attempt to understand it. I deal with so many people who don’t understand science as a thing and most of that is due to the fact that there is this access barrier.

    It’s a simple concept. If you make it hard to to get, people will make it easy to get. That may mean cost, time, or availability, or convenience.

    But really it is just so bizarre. For instance, the US does some good research. But for my field? Brazil is beginning to do some amazing things that we are not doing in the US. Singapore is doing some amazing things such that the scientific community in China and the US are taking notice. So I just cannot, for the life of me, understand how people can possibly resist the knowledge that the world is far bigger and more unique and more capable than we give it credit for. smh

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 4, 2012

      I was joking on twitter that if the White Savior Industrial Complex meets with “nope sorry, we don’t need your help” it’d cause such a mass plummet in self-esteem. Where will barely-educated backpacking students get their ego boosts! And then there are missionaries, who are creepy as fuck and keep talking about “penetrating” my country.

      Oh, man, the academic stuff. It’s just shameful only people in the academia/university students can access things like JSTOR; everyday people would run into “do you want to subscribe to this, and this, and also that.” Of bloody course there’ll be piracy, and there should be too.

  5. I’m reminded of the faux outrage when a reporter took a picture of a man, in turn, taking a picture with his cellphone of Michelle Obama working at a homeless shelter. The usual assholes seethed for days and weeks over that cell phone. How dare that poor person have a cell phone with which he could search for jobs and help and keep in touch with family and friends, even if he was homeless? Especially if he was homeless.

    And of course, there’s the people who love to talk about how women from those poor, unspoiled countries are so much better than the arrogant feminazis here. “Unspoiled” means impoverished and “better” means hungry, desperate for work, and so on—–easy to exploit, to take advantage of. Somehow the judgement never falls on them for being predators. (I used to run into them in Russian Federation countries, and they were even more disgusting than you might imagine.)

    This is closely related to the “Oh noes, those fake poor people have fridges and microwaves!” (I once had the experience of arguing with two college women about how they were totally more poverty-stricken than I was, when their ‘poverty’ was self chosen, and I was subsiding on handouts from friends after my PTSD made it impossible for me to work—-for good. And they argued that I had a three-year-old computer and ergo, that made me more privileged than them. And that I had not sold all my belongings. Unspoken, of course, is the belief that in order to be the deserving poor one has to sell all one’s belongings, which somehow assuages fear in the privileged heart. Why? The great privilege in that conversation, however, was unremarked-upon: the power to declare that one is the decider of all important things, by virtue of one’s important education and unshakable confidence.) Are they so shaky that if they let the poor people—whether here or there——get any ideas then where will they be? Which suggests they know the game is up.

    It’s funny how they seem to find the poor of other nations charming and refreshing when they hate the ones here so much.

    • braak

       /  June 4, 2012

      Oh, yeah, there was another frothing round of of pundit-spit-splattering when someone (a cashier at Wal-Mart, I think?) wrote this vicious rant about how pissed off she was that people were using food stamps to buy things like lobster or birthday cakes.

      “Oh, we believe in helping people who are poor. Just so long as they only eat tinned beans and tasteless gray porridge.”

      • That is precisely it. You must be humble, ask for nothing, doff your hat, and never look the upper classes in the eye. You must not complain. I just don’t get it. Bootstraps! But why the insistence that people sell all their things? I’ve literally had people say that to me, and I know that some of my friends have been very self-righteously given that advice as well. You must divest yourself of everything pleasant or useful for sums that will not, in all probability, add up to enough to accomplish anything at all, and leave you without things like a bed, a TV, a computer, a cell phone…..This attitude that cell phones are an expensive, self-indulgent, frippery reflect the sheer stupidity of the people that voice this type of opinion.

        Self indulgence, that’s it, isn’t it? If you didn’t indulge yourself, if you ate out of cans and saved every last penny….you wouldn’t be poor. The amount of money one has reflects the degree of virtue one possesses. And to not desire heaps of money, gotten at the expense of other people, is to be a horrible person indeed.

        The poor in other countries—-or the desire to label the people in other countries as poor—-means that one can exploit them at will because they’re all non-virtuous. Otherwise they would have virtuously chosen rich parents.

        • the twisted spinster

           /  June 4, 2012

          The cell phone thing is hilarious. I bought mine at Walmart for ten dollars. And the cluelessness re: sell all your things. As if the average person could get more than fifty bucks for their belongings anyway. We live in an age of cheap, disposable gadgets, cheap flat-packed furniture, and cheap clothing. Unless you’re already rich selling all your belongings might get you, tops, a couple hundred bucks. And yes, I’ve sold stuff I’ve owned to get extra needed cash but it wasn’t exactly enough to live off of.

        • braak

           /  June 5, 2012

          Yeah, I think a big part of it is the notion that most people are poor because of bad spending habits. It’s a comfortable spot for the middle class to be in, because then we all don’t have to feel guilty for perpetuating a system that just completely shits on people who are in many cases victims of racism or sexism or ableism, and in many other cases just unfortunate. No one wants to believe they live in a country that would happily stomp on them if they were unlucky; it’s easier to believe that the reason that a person is poor is because they bought too much birthday cake.

          The cell phone thing, I was just thinking, is actually *completely* ridiculous, and I think the only people who have ever brought it up must be people who haven’t seriously had to look for a job in decades. I mean, really, how is a person supposed to get a job if they don’t have a phone number? How do people think this process even works?

        • acrackedmoon

           /  June 5, 2012

          Carrier pigeons.

        • A cell phone is quite possibly the most valuable thing a person could have, were they down on their luck in any way. As the post so admirably points out, it can be an all-in-one electronic office, but it also offers tiny little things, too: taking pictures and video—of cops, maybe, doing something they shouldn’t do?—-keeping in touch, getting help, storing photos of loved ones, and offering a number, which amounts to not being disappeared. It’s a way of maintaining one’s existence. All these white dudes freaking out over the cell phones and/or infantilizing poor folks in other countries are not just not listening to them; they’re silencing them, they’re substituting their own perceptions as the reality of these people. And of course, in their happy little wonderworld where the peasants love them, it’s not exploitation, because the culture is sexist or whatever, and hey, that means it’s okay to go sex touring for underage, starving, desperate prostitutes or whatever. It’s okay to bargain in a marketplace with somebody who hasn’t eaten yet that day.

        • acrackedmoon

           /  June 5, 2012

          It’s interesting, the way smug people want to prioritize your needs for you: you have a phone? Clearly not poor enough. Why are you talking about infrastructure for communication and distribution of information when you’ve got people still starving??? (Actually… starvation’s not really a problem here; we’re an agricultural country! Food is cheap. Healthy food is cheap.) But they neglect the idea that these infrastructures–like, oh, having a phone–make social mobility possible.

          I don’t have access to ready statistics but I imagine ownership/use of non-smartphones is pretty widespread, because the cheapest of the cheap types (just the kind that only makes/receives calls/texts) is, oh, $6? There are a lot of mobile phones in use here. A lot.

        • Hell, in Iraq, the reason the bombmakers started using cell phones as detonators was because they were so cheap. I know that sounds like a weird recommendation…..

          It’s like these people that do this shit, they want to….get revenge….on people who never did anything to them but exist and remind them that life is not fair to people who aren’t rich white navel-gazing dewdz.

          I remember being relentlessly harassed all through school and wondering,
          Why won’t they just leave me alone? That’s all I want.” Hiding, dressing in baggy clothes, not raising a hand in class, sitting in the back, walking to and from school rather than taking the bus….Maybe being ignored is threatening because they want to see worship looking out at them from every pair of eyes? Maybe if they see you flinch when they glance your way they’re afraid the truth will come out? (The stories about MItt Romney’s bullying and the way the fucker actually giggled when claiming ignorance fit in here really well. All this stuff, all these guys? They’re pretty much the same guy, doing the same thing.) It’s all shades of the same bullshit.

  6. angelrenoir

     /  June 4, 2012

    Oh yes! We could not afford to buy a computer and internet in the “third world countries”. That’s why when I go home, I browse the internet with my psychic powers and make posts online with telepathy! :D

    Seriously, WTF. Can I say how much I hate how in the USA the phones are locked to a specific ? Like iPhones only wants an AT&T plan, or else I can’t do shit with my phone? Yeah. HATE. Back home I can buy a phone and choose whatever service plan I want from at least seven service providers.

    “When I was seven, our family lived in the middle of a slum in Java, Indonesia overlooking a wide vista of rice paddies and farms.”

    As someone from Java, Indonesia, I feel obligated to say “FUCK YOU, WHORE!!!!!” Rice paddies and farms = slums, eh? Okay, lets see you try and get your steak and burgers and cheese and milk without them. Considering that the rice sold in supermarkets here are from Thailand and India… Ha.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 4, 2012

      Er, please don’t use “whore” as an insult, thanks (it’s sexist). That is, I understand why you’re annoyed–I’d be too!–but there’s no need to throw around gendered insults and so on.

      • angelrenoir

         /  June 5, 2012

        Was under the impression that “whore” can apply to both genders x____x Sorry.

        • acrackedmoon

           /  June 5, 2012

          Not a problem. Yeah, it can be directed at both genders, but it’s demeaning specifically to women.

        • angelrenoir

           /  June 6, 2012

          Well, now I know better. There are stuff that gets thrown around so easily nowadays that it’s just hard to discern what is and what isn’t derogatory.

      • angelrenoir

         /  June 5, 2012

        Wish there’s an edit button so I could edit stuff because sometimes I weird my words weirdly when I’m flailing with rage/excitement.

        • angelrenoir

           /  June 5, 2012

          I meant “word my words weirdly”. Darnit!

  7. Oh, one can certainly be shocked, sometimes… Someone talking about environmental issues in SE Asia asserted that Malaysia is a poor country and has a thuggish political system that will obviously fustrate real protections for forests. Wait, whaaaat? I then said “Malaysia is not a poor country.” You’d *think* that’d be the end of the story, but no. The response was that Malaysia wasn’t a member of the OECD. Awwww hay-el no… So I went “Dude…Just because a country isn’t one of Western + Japan doesn’t mean it’s automatically poor. When you say stuff like that, people will think you’re being racist or have some similar problem.” This was followed up with a blood-curdling threat of public embarrassment about how WRONG YOU ARE (This guy can be stubborn and inflexible once he has an idea in his head–so necessary). That mostly cleared things up, except for a Singaporean who started talking about how much more unprivileged Malaysia gets once she goes from home to there. **sigh**

  8. “Third World” is pretty much an obsolete definition, it has some merit in it’s original context (that is, in connection to the Cold War, Non-Aligned Movement, etc.) and also to describe a group of countries immediate post-war/post independence, but as descriptor it rapidly lost meaning, hence all the acronyms that were started (in the 80′s I think) to try to describe the differentiation, like NIC, LDC, etc. etc. (many of them bad and short-term in their own right)

    The ROK isn’t by any definition third-world, not even the political one, though.

    In it’s original context it was of course also a political and not economic definition.

  9. This post is full of win. And then it quotes Kuzhali Manickavel, which is double win.

  10. Aliette De Bodard’s latest really captures that swimming against flood waters feeling of maintaining – and at times maintaining pride in – one’s cultural identity:

    http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/debodard_06_12/

    One of the best pieces of SFF I’ve read in a while, it really is that good.

  11. When I was much younger, my family and I went to this church. My mother is a single mom and she was raising three kids. She knew that she couldn’t succeed where she was so she packed us all up and moved to a different city, where she had to start all over. So we found this church and it was a good one. Every place has rotten apples, some bruised ones, and good ones, ya know. But she told me this story. There was an older lady in the church and she was like a grandmother to us. We’d go to her house and help around and she’d make pies and fudge and stuff and really *be* with us. We loved her and she loved us and it was a very good formative relationship in my life. She gave me my first Bible. She was a bit traditional, but that was as much as the time she grew up in as it was her reading of the Bible. She was a white woman, had to have been born in the 1920s or 30s, and she was fairly well-off and when we knew her her children were grown and she was a widow.

    As you can imagine, my mother asked help from the church a lot since it was the 1980s and she was a single mother. My mother was a gymnast, a ballet dancer, and a model, but when she moved us, she went back to school so that she could be something more. The point is, she tried and she needed a lot of help to succeed. But she told me this one story that really made me realize how dumb this world is and how much it’s populated by idiots. She told me that one day there were a few other older ladies in the church and they wanted to know why she dressed so well and why we were dressed so well seeing as how she often asked for help, which meant financial help sometimes or free babysitting. And this older woman, this grandmother to me, who had to have not been so removed from people who could say they were a generation or two from having slaves or being slaves said something like “What would you have her do? Show up naked to church?” And I realized that for those other ladies, it was about some kind of moral superiority. It was if we didn’t visibly look the part, then clearly we weren’t worthy. And it goes back to a profound sense of entitlement and not understanding your own philosophy and only wanting to be *perceived* as good without having to do the hard, legit stuff that makes you good.

    It’s why I fearlessly and proudly say that I’m a progressive Christian and go against much of what my contemporaries would have me think is important in my religion. It’s why I won’t give them my religion because it’s more than superficial works. So yeah. These people are the worst.

  12. “An angry farmer chased us through the rice paddies with a machete.”

    Sadly, he got away.

    “Yet we are also disconnected from billions of people, some of whom still live in the Stone Age, who are dying of AIDS and sleeping under mosquito nets.”

    The prejudice here is that the “we” does not include the “billions” “dying of AIDS” or whatever, and that’s very telling. If I can follow political activists and journalists around the world through facebook and twitter–if I can follow, minute by minute, the state execution of a potentially innocent man on the other side of the U.S., and if someone in Cairo tweets an RIP in his name five minutes after it happens, I’d call that a connection, not a disconnection. The writer puts the blame on technology, but I think the schism exists inside his head.

    When I think of Laos, I don’t think of “Third World” or “sleeping under mosquito nets.” I only think of classmates or coworkers who come from there. And then I think about what brought their families here, and that’s a dark path that only ends with me flipping tables.

    “Ebooks can be pirated; physical books cannot.”

    But they can be stolen. I was once a well read teenager due to my unique, uh, “skills” at acquiring things. I still prefer physical books, and I can’t really explain why. But even I know it’s a personal preference, not a universal truth.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 5, 2012

      Sadly, he got away.

      Right? A tragedy.

      But they can be stolen. I was once a well read teenager due to my unique, uh, “skills” at acquiring things.

      Haha. Well, the thing with piracy is that at the very least you deprive no one else of their copies, so yeah.

  13. “Like” on Captain Falcon and Shardbaenre’s excellent posts.

    One thing that is hard for me to ascertain, and it would be great to have non-Westerners comment on, is the role of missionaries and secularism on prior religious oppression.

    On some level my understanding is conversions away from Hinduism have helped Indians of lower castes, but I’m not 100% sure about this connecting to Christianity. Seems like the major civil rights movement centers around conversions to Buddhism.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 5, 2012

      Missionaries are complete scum and, IMO, a tool of continuing colonialism and white man’s burden. Fortunately, they make very little headway in my country because everyone here thinks Christianity is bugfuck silly and can’t be taken seriously.

      • Missionaries are complete scum and, IMO, a tool of continuing colonialism and white man’s burden. Fortunately, they make very little headway in my country because everyone here thinks Christianity is bugfuck silly and can’t be taken seriously.

        You mean there’s a shot where somewhere it’s not bugfuck?

  14. Perfect example of fools ruining it for the rest of us. Being a missionary is not about conversion. Being and evangelical is not about conversion. And when you couple those things such that the people you seek to convert or help or serve feels that they have no choice but to parrot you say in hopes of receiving aid, then you are doing it horrifically wrong. It’s about service. You take only a few other people, not a mass, and you go into an area and you do what *they* need. If they need you to not take jobs from people who are already there because you are free labor and they aren’t, then you need to not do that. If they need you to teach English or fill ditches or cook or pretty well anything, that is what you do. It isn’t about taking out your Bible and beating them over the head with this bizarre idea of “evangelism” because even being an evangelical is not what is portrayed. I’m supposed to be recognized by my deeds. My faith is supposed to be seen and in the course of that, maybe someone asks me more. Maybe someone opens into a dialog, but it isn’t about conversion. It isn’t about force. I am not supposed to put conditions, explicit or implicit, on my service. The very moment I do that is the moment I become, in your parlance “complete scum”.

    So to sum up, I am supposed to help you regardless of any chance I may or may not have of converting you. If I’m to be a good Christian and someone worthy of it, then it isn’t about me. It’s about you and what you would have me do for you and to what degree I do this openly and without reservation. So that was a bit of theology. If it’s off point, lemme know. Offending others with Christianity is pretty well the opposite of its purpose. My calling isn’t to condemn people to hell. It isn’t to pass judgment. It isn’t humiliating others in need of help. It isn’t about being morally superior to people you perceive as other. It’s about fellowship and service. And if you can legitimately tar me with the brush of hate and oppression and violence and inequality, then I can’t be a Christian.

    There’s this amazing chapter in the Isaiah where God is kinda going “What? What is this? You think fasting is going to make everything better? You think it will when you haven’t removed the yoke of oppression? When you haven’t stopped fighting with your neighbors? When you haven’t fed the poor? When you haven’t clothed the naked? When your workers suffer? When inequality thrives? What is this? Only a day of humility you give me? Just a day? That ends in fighting? Do those other things and then we’ll talk.”- Isaiah 58. I think it’s pretty well explicit in the Bible. The rule above all others is to love others as yourself. The Bible is pretty well a commentary on that. The Bible isn’t a weapon to bludgeon others with.

    • trevoresque

       /  June 6, 2012

      I always preferred the “love thy neighbour” interpretation, and Jesus had some pretty subversive lines, but in Numbers we find God’s army embarking on an imperialist mission of ethnic cleansing, mass rape, and forced conversion. Even the Book of Isaiah elevates one belief system and culture above all others, with boasts that the whole world will be converted and all will bow down before the chosen. I figure the last book in the New Testament is a coded message for oppressed groups living in the pre-Christian Roman world, but it can also be read as a “love me or suffer” threat from an omnicidal tyrant.

      The Bible has a wealth of beautiful passages, and even as an agnostic I enjoy it as a source of stories. But the message depends on the page you flip to. I suppose we can say similar things about any culture, ideology, or belief. I’d like to say Berlin’s emerging queer culture was the “true” Weimar Germany, but the National Socialists have just as much claim to the era.

  15. In general, whether its Hinduism or Islam or Christianity, I think we’re seeing growing, if only marginally, movement away from the more judgmental aspects whether that’s Hell or a karmic wheel. As the need to “save” people diminishes, ideally the more progressive aspects of faiths will prevail.

    For now, I have to admit, I’m curious as to the Thai people’s views concerning Christianity and why they think it’s silly.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 6, 2012

      Because Christian tenets look like gibberish, probably. There’s nothing in it that rings true, or culturally resonates. It’s like monkeys trying to preach a faith about bananas to us, except less understandable.

  16. “I always preferred the “love thy neighbour” interpretation, and Jesus had some pretty subversive lines, but in Numbers we find God’s army embarking on an imperialist mission of ethnic cleansing, mass rape, and forced conversion. Even the Book of Isaiah elevates one belief system and culture above all others, with boasts that the whole world will be converted and all will bow down before the chosen. I figure the last book in the New Testament is a coded message for oppressed groups living in the pre-Christian Roman world, but it can also be read as a “love me or suffer” threat from an omnicidal tyrant.”

    Yes, and I think you can find that pretty well everywhere if that’s what you’re looking for. The Old Testament was about Israeli obedience. Specific rituals and rules that applied to Israelites. But event hat comes with some serious context of near Eastern society. You’d be surprised at the how much of the OT does advocate for female inclusion…can’t really say homosexual inclusion, but the proof texts of the OT that homophobes regularly bring up are often not really applicable, especially if they say they are Christians since, as a Christian you should believe that the New Testament fulfills the covenant of the Old and the Levitical laws are really not applicable to Gentiles. Numerous authors of the New Testament used the argumentation style of the time to refute key parts of the Old Testament or to even reinterpret it to fit the new world being constructed.

    It boils down to this: if you truly think people are equal, then the Bible will support you. I think it offers more support than if you think people really aren’t equal. There is no shortage of pastors, reverends, or Rabbis who believe this. Especially in light of how subversive Jesus’ teaching are. It is not really a personal Lord and Savior relationship. He actually wants you to go out and subvert traditions that do not espouse love. You are actually supposed to go out feed the poor and give up your riches in service of others. It isn’t an abstract idea. If you think that the Bible is inviolate and that it’s about following specific steps, the letter of the law, and not the spirit of the law, then yes, there’s plenty in the Bible that will support you; but I don’t think it supports you very well.

    But ultimately, anything can be used as a weapon. It doesn’t mean that it’s the right way to use it. And even so, the Bible is pretty clear that you are not to use words of hate.

  17. If these pretty declarations were actually followed by Christians or their institutes. Two thousand years of Christian tradition teaches that it can be used to justify and support anything. It has been used in the past, it will be used in the future. And conversion still plays a significant role in most Christian denominations. The attempts to convert me both by random people and missionaries? I lost count. None of them thought they were doing something insulting.

  18. shardbaenre, having grown up in a progressive Christian environment myself, I have a certain amount of sympathy for your views. But, as many others have pointed out, Christianity is essentially a moral null-value.* Hateful, judgmental people find in it exactly what they need to justify their hate, while kind and accepting people find in it exactly what they need to endorse their tolerance. You can argue that you are following “true Christianity” and what the Bible “really says” more than Fred Phelps is, but the fact is that he has just as much claim to be following the Bible as you do. Which is why, while I of course would rather deal with tolerant Christians like you than bigoted hatebags like Fred Phelps, I view your religion as completely orthogonal to who you are as a person and thus don’t understand why you feel a need to go on about it. I am pretty sure you’d still be a decent person if you were a Buddhist or a Muslim or an atheist; likewise, Fred Phelps would be a vile person even if he abandoned Christianity.

    *Actually, I believe this is true of all religions. Everyone constructs a model of what they think is right or wrong, and if they are religious, they then construct an understanding of their religion in which it endorses everything they believe.

    • @Inverarity Pynchon

      Lol! I like and am flattered that you have faith that I’d still be a good person without Christianity! But maybe Phelps wouldn’t be the horrifying waste of space if he wasn’t steeped in the toxicity that some Christians espouse because it became the dominant religion, which, whenever that happens expect nothing but horror.

      I will say that I didn’t grow up in a progressive Christian environment and that I neither used my skills or myself in any kind of meaningful way. I mean, I can point to being a woman of color as a factor in my life because it was, but I was also legitimately lazy about my talents and abilities. I had a lot of help. The kind of help that is found in networks of people who have more privilege than I who have freely given it and not so much my own abilities. Lots of luck. I found progressive Christian values while going to a traditional, conservative Christian private school in Texas, where I had some remarkable conversations with traditionalists that were sometimes far more open than a number of progressives. So, there’s a route for you.

      I go on about it because I think it informs me as much as anything else in my life. It’s the basis of my philosophy. I can’t really separate it from myself. Just like I wouldn’t be able to separate being a scientist from myself. I approach pretty well everything with the question of “What kind of evidence/thinking/argument do I need to change my mind about this issue?” And then I go out to find those things. I don’t think everyone is willing to do that, culture warrior or social justice warrior or not. Could I have reached this same place with another philosophy guiding me? Possibly. I can’t really answer that and I don’t really think I can assume that I would knowing who I was and now who I am. But really, I think when you cede the conversation to the idiots within your group, then you do your beliefs a disservice.

      What I really think is that Phelps doesn’t have as much claim to the Bible as he would have people believe. Do you think extremist have legitimate claims to the text they would support? By which I mean, do you think that the anti-global warming folks have as much claim to statistics as the scientists who do nothing but study the phenomenon and can give you a simplified version of it without doing any kind of data normalization and stats gymnastics required to make it not work? Do you think that creationist have equal claim to their beliefs as those who believe in evolution? It’s, to me, the same thing. Because one is a true skeptic: someone who can tell you what it would take to change their mind. And the other is operating off a sense of gut truth. They go from a fact to finding specific support data when it should be you go from a thought to finding as much data as you can and specifically seek out the methods and kind of data that would disprove you. In other words, due diligence. Do I think Phelps did due diligence? No. I think it’s superficial. So refute that he has a legitimate claim.

      Of course, if your post was about me betraying a sense of entitlement, then sure, I can stop talking about it. I wouldn’t have a problem with that. And I hope that I listen more and I apologize that I haven’t if that’s what your post meant.

      @Next Friday: “If these pretty declarations were actually followed by Christians or their institutes. Two thousand years of Christian tradition teaches that it can be used to justify and support anything.”

      Well, yes, but that generally happens to anything that becomes the dominant thought and is used as a gatekeeper. The worst thing to have happened to Christianity is the moment it became an accepted institution that had vested interest, whether economically or politically. It’s tribalism with sharp lines that divine “us” and “others”. You can twist anything into anything else. I think I said that. If I didn’t, I know Inverarity Pynchon said that and I agree. Really, just pick up any dystopia that was rooted in a good idea. The point of most of those is that as soon as it’s the dominant thought form, no matter how seemingly benign, it can be taken to it’s logical, extreme conclusion.

      And again, if you don’t want me to comment on it anymore, then I won’t. Ain’t no problem where I seethe in rage juices and talk about how it isn’t fair that you won’t listen to me and such. That kind of thing is pointless.

      • trevoresque

         /  June 7, 2012

        In every religion/ideology we need a war between the awesome adherents and the assholes. I’m surrounded every day by Catholics who’ve never agreed with the Vatican. They continue to identify as Catholic because of culture. I used to find this baffling, but now I view it as a positive thing. Culture is always changing.

      • trevoresque

         /  June 7, 2012

        P.S. These Catholics I speak of all voted for parties that supported same-sex marriage in Canada, etc. Despite my own terrible experiences with Roman Catholicism, I’m happy to have them helping out. This applies to any religion.

  19. @sharbaenre: I wasn’t trying to shut you up. I’m an atheist, but I don’t generally feel “oppressed” or “unprivileged” over it, just annoyed at the entitlement of religious people. Which does not include you; I don’t think you were acting entitled. I do think, though, that like most well-meaning Christians, you embrace the good parts (Jesus loves you and wants everyone to be nice to each other) and prefer to pretend that the bad parts (Jehovah says rape and exterminate anyone who does not worship me) are a historical aberration. But no, I do not think that Fred Phelps’s interpretation of the Bible is objectively less wrong than yours. Obviously I prefer your interpretation. But I don’t think you can prove that people who think God wants gays stoned to death are doing Christianity wrong in the same way that you can prove that creationists and global warming denialists are wrong.

    • Actually, not really. I do think that Israel was a product of its time. By which I mean, yes they conquered people. And yes they warred. And yes they were also slaves. Yes they had patriarchy. But they also had the story of Zelophehad daughters (Numbers 27: 1-11), which is basically two daughters of this dead guy saying “Our father is dead and we want to keep his name and our inheritance, why shouldn’t we?” Moses taking it to God and God answering “Well, yeah, of course, Moses. Do this thing. Give them their due.” So yes, absolutely you can find obscure texts that can affirm what you want and go against the overall message, but can you really say that it’s right? I don’t think you can.

      I acknowledge that there were lots of times that God told His people to wander 40 years and then go conquer a place and kill the people there. But I also know that He said don’t make slaves of them and to keep yourself separate from them. I also know that He has cast Israel into slavery and out of their homelands for disobedience. So I know that, in terms of near Eastern cultures, that Israel was not more war-like and aggressive than the next, but it was aggressive and it did make war and it did kill people. I’m not ignoring those things. Levitical laws are hardcore. Obedience was hardcore. Can you read Genesis as a philosophy of patriarchy? Sure. But I don’t think you can really read it that way if you attempt to understand the word choices the author uses for the text in its original form because meaning is lost in translation, which means looking at the original Greek it was written in and looking at the historical context. But you can walk away with the exact same beliefs if you start with fact and search for specific things that support you, just like any other fallacy.

      So do I think these things are valuable to understand? Yes. But I don’t think anyone, myself included, can possibly read any portion of the Bible without knowing the cultural context and how that particular time informed the text or the authors. Because then the meaning often does change. You start recognizing rhetorical devices. So to interpret the Bible in some of the ways of homophobes or sexists, I think you have to do mental gymnastics that defy the scientific method or basic logic exercises. But is there profound ambiguity in the text regardless? Yes. But that isn’t an excuse to condone hate speech. But can I also find those same threads in atheism and agnosticism? Yes and that is absolutely no reason to tar all of them with the same brush.

      I’m a Christian, right? So what I believe is that the OT covenant was fulfilled with the NT. As a Christian that is the basic thing you believe. If you don’t truly believe that, you’ll go to so-called proof texts, which themselves are often not clear cut, to make your point. There are six proof texts that support anti-gay readings, but those are often not in a context that is applicable or you have to specifically select meaning and disregard other meaning or they are associated with wordings that can’t be pinned down so, for me, I can’t even fulfill my one rule of “What would it take to change my mind on supporting gay rights?” For the life of me, I cannot find an honest moral argument that would have me not supporting gay rights. And it really isn’t even because of some new-fangled, modern woman issues. I didn’t support gay rights for a long time and then when I got serious and started looking, I couldn’t find anything. And I was coming from a place with the default position of “of course the Bible condemns that!”

      So yes, there are extremely entitled religious people, but I think that goes hand-in-hand with being the dominant religion or associating the dominant religion with some other powerful privilege such that it is effectively co-opted. I don’t actually think you’ll find that strand in Christians somewhere that is inhospitable to them (I’m not certain for sure). They can’t really afford to be that way, but you can afford to be that way if you are relatively secure that you will not be persecuted.

      And I don’t know, to answer a question you probably weren’t even asking, science has reaffirmed my faith because: I Thessalonians 5:21 “Test everything. Hold fast that which is good.” I struggle and I grapple with my philosophy and I think that’s something everyone should do. Keeps ya honest.

  20. I think its important to give people a different path in faith, whether the religion is Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or something other belief system. A lot of people want to maintain a part of their faith while still joining the varied progressive moments. Making a world where “progressivism” is incompatible with religious belief only shows down progress IMO.

    Why I find Shardbaenre’s posts to be valuable, as it provides an alternative to what I see as a troubling situation where allies become advisers trying to point out the *right* way to progressive.

    Anyone looking to do genuine work as allies with minority communities…I just don’t see how you avoid examination of religion in doing the real work. I think secularism is important, in that religious belief shouldn’t be a means to justify homophobic/transphobic/sexist laws, but I think atheists try to co-opt progressivism and make it into something to fit an agenda that isn’t necessarily connected to rights and equality.

  21. I have a question, coming from a white American – while I’m completely aware that the vast majority of the world is completely as technologically advanced as the US (or more – I worked with a guy from Niger who said the roads everywhere he’s been in Africa are better then in the Norfolk/Virginia Beach area. We’ve had military brass complain because they have trouble getting to their ships without flat tires…), I also know that the bad living conditions in other countries are much worse than the bad living conditions in America. How do you talk about that and do something about that while still 1) respecting the people you’re trying to help and not being a jackass, and 2) not making it seem like you think the entire country/not-US world is like that (applies more to discussion)? I *think* I’m pretty good about it, and none of my friends from non-European countries have ever called me on anything (and at least two had NO filter between brain and mouth), but it’s mostly impossible to figure that out about yourself without another’s perspective.

    Also, missionaries? 99% of them are freaking OBNOXIOUS. There is one church I’ve been in (I’m not really any religion, kind of just agnostic and wander in various places for community) because they had a small orchestra and weren’t preachy about joining the church (Presbyterians). Their bunch of missionaries (big church) went to some part of Africa that had little or no access to healthcare and has been building hospitals. No churches, just hospitals. I can respect that. And really, I think that’s more in line with what Jesus told them to do in the Bible anyway.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 7, 2012

      To be honest, I’m not the best person to ask about this. Thailand has universal healthcare. It functions, too.

      I guess the trouble with most volunteers is that they often get self-congratulatory and talk about the locals as if they aren’t people but some kind of NPCs in their grand heroic quest of “rounding themselves out” or finding their souls; you could google “white savior industrial complex” to see more about this. And one way not to do it is–well, see Josiah Harrist.

      • I would hope that if I ever started to sound like him, someone would either take me to get the brain tumor removed or my head would just explode on its own. Ugh. You can just feel the condescension oozing through the computer screen…

  22. Pynchy: I think you’re taking a rather limited view of what christianity “is”, in a sense (this to some degree applies to all religions, but I’m most familiar with christian theological history) when atheists (like me :p) point to the Bible and say “Why aren’t you believing that? You’re cherry picking!” we’re pretty much buying the literalist interpretation of scripture: We’re at that point more like the fundamentalists than many progressive christians, whose view of scripture, revelation, etc. are very different.

    Take for an instance the group(s) of christians called Radical Spiritualists (quakers are sometimes lobbed into that group) to a Radical Spiritualist any question of scripture is simply besides the point: Revelation comes directly from the Holy Spirit (hence the name) your relationship to God isn’t found in history or scripture but in your own relationship to God, real-time.

    And then we have literalists, various degrees of allegorical interpretations, historical ones. (eg. the idea that scripture is a document of the jewish people’s conception of God, not neccessarily an infallible roadmap) etc. etc.

    Religious people always have a leg up on us atheists though, since they can always refer to their own subjectie (and incommunicable) experience of the divine: One of the reasons I tend to be wary about claiming that religious people are wrong (as opposed to that they cannot prove their views) is precisely becuase I can’t know what kind of experiences they’ve had in their headspace.

    I can say “You can’t prove that and thus there’s no reason for me to act as if you’re correct” but I can’t say “You’re wrong.”

  23. Emil, like I said, I’m an ex-Christian, so I understand well the difference between the Biblical literalists (who are actually a minority of Christians) and progressive Christians, like shardbaenre. My point isn’t that Christianity is inherently pro-rape and genocide, but that, like all religions, there are no objective, provable “truths” to point to, so while it’s understandable that Christians who aren’t batshit crazy want to disavow Fred Phelps and even the more mainstream fundies/evangelicals, they are engaging in the No True Scotsman fallacy. Also, my experience is that people are assholes or not assholes irrespective of their religious beliefs; in theory, your religion is supposed to inform your beliefs and your ethics, but in practice, people form their morals independently and then fit their religion to them. God always agrees with the believer.

  24. “God always agrees with the believer.”

    That isn’t objectively true. Not even in the Bible. Plenty of instances of disobedience and punishment delivered to believers who absolutely *knew* they were right. Plenty of times God is all “Yeah, no to all that you just did. How’s about some exile? Slavery? Massive flood? I can do those things.”

    Subjectively that may be true. Phelps can believe God is on his side, but that doesn’t mean He actually is. You can cast doubt on beliefs and render certain reasoning untrue. So, for the most part, progressive Christians or people who aren’t literalist, generally take up the burden of proof in regards to these things. And we can offer logical and clear reasoning that is by far more logical and better reasoned than folks like Phelps and still there is a rejection of it and he keeps the same argument that’s just been debunked. It is the same thing as a climate scientist providing over and over again the logical conclusion. Just because it’s rejected by nutters doesn’t make it any less true or subjective on their part.

    I think this post better articulates the meaning I’m trying to get at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/06/06/mutuality-week-and-the-burden-of-proof/

    The Phelpses of the world (no matter what tribe they come from) will never ask “What kind of evidence do I need to change my mind?” And since they can’t and won’t ask that, I am free to disregard them, but others who choose to condemn Christianity because of the Phelpses of the world and them clinging to the privilege of being a Phelps is not exactly fair shakes. I mean, be a Christian or not, that’s fine. This isn’t about changing your mind in the belief that there is a lot of vitriol here or if there’s a God or not. Decide to call the Phelpses what they are, that’s fine. But you give those guys power when you choose to disregard everything else other people are saying. Or to *equate* them as being equally valid when that isn’t really true either.

    “Also, my experience is that people are assholes or not assholes irrespective of their religious beliefs; in theory, your religion is supposed to inform your beliefs and your ethics, but in practice, people form their morals independently and then fit their religion to them.”

    I think that’s actually part of being human. People can all themselves feminists while being Sarah Palin. It doesn’t mean they actually are or that their notion isn’t weird and perverted. No one can possibly live up to the ideal no matter what form it takes. I don’t think I’m an asshole, but I am very much capable of doing some pretty assholish things. We all are.

    So does that mean that you being an atheist has nothing to do with the morals you believe? Because I’ve met plenty of atheists who believe they have a line on what being human is because they don’t have God. And plenty who don’t think that. Being an atheist informs how you regard people in some instances. I think it’s impossible to get away from that. I think it’s a chicken and the egg situation when you say something like this. They had to start somewhere. And then they had to let it lead somewhere. It is equally valid to say “I felt this way about the world; and when I looked around, I realize that Buddhism embodied what I was trying to be” as it is to say “I grew up in Buddhism and adopted it as my religion which means I look at the world this way.”

    Phelps’ path could’ve easily been “I was a young man and I lived through the AIDS scare of the 80s and I realized it was all the gays fault so I dug deep in my Bible, which told me it was true” or “I grew up in a Southern Baptist Church and my pastor told me the true word of God so I looked around and saw the horrors of the 80s AIDS scare and realized my Bible was right.” Those are two different things even though they manifest the same destructive pathology. So are you saying that he’s being truer if he goes the second way? The first is him starting with the thought that gays were evil and then he found scriptural support. The second is him reading the Bible saying that gays are evil and then he specifically looked for things in the *world* to validate that. But his religion did inform him either way. And that’s the problem. I just don’t think he’s a Christian based on his reading. I don’t think he has a claim to the name. He doesn’t look for context. He’s a literalist. What you do *after* you decide those things matter. So how can you possibly say which came first in regards to someone? Sometimes you even do both of those things at the same time. That’s how any kind of philosophy it works. It isn’t just religion.

    I wasn’t always a feminist. I still get it wrong or privilege betrays me. That happens. It took time and years for me to get to a place to look at the world that way. So when I did, was it because I thought the world was a fucked up place for me or did I decide that because I was reading about feminism, saw that it made sense and then retroactively applied it to my life’s experiences? How can you make that determination when I barely even know what way it was for me? And what does that even matter if the central point is that I’m not asking questions? If the central point is that I am so far away from the basic tenets of feminism, why would that matter? I’m not in the right place anyway, but would you say that Sarah Palin has a claim to the name?

    Feminism expresses in wildly different ways that are still equally valid. Mine probably doesn’t look like ACM’s. Our lives are different in ways that maybe there isn’t overlap in the places where I think there should be or she thinks there should be. The point is to ask “what would it take” and then open that dialog between she and I to figure that out. But maybe I’m a jerk about things. And you and so many others can *see* that I’m being a jerk about things and that I’m not honestly engaging you while forcing the burden onto you to prove to me I’m wrong. If I’m not willing to honestly engage, would you really say that I can legitimately claim the feminism mantle? Would you say “yeah, there goes one of those fucked up feminists that doesn’t actually say or do anything feminist but she’s still a feminist” Or would you say “wow, I can’t see the feminism for the bullshit”? I can honestly say that so many people here would call me out on my bullshit, show me the door, and comfortably walk away from the encounter in utter disbelief that I could possibly label myself as such. Be honest, don’t you think that of Sarah Palin? So why wouldn’t the same courtesy be applied to Christians? You know what it should look like. Phelps does not look like it, but you validate his privilege by saying “Nope. The same thing and just because you are a progressive doesn’t mean that they aren’t the same.”

  25. Why has it taken so long for me to discover you and your blog?! You are so great, omg. I’m so glad to find other Thai people on the internet–you know, since our presence is apparently so rare because we are all so dustily impoverished loljk.

    It’s just… some white western people think Thai people in Thailand don’t use rice cookers (?!?!?), so I suppose they couldn’t possibly wrap their heads around the idea that Thailanders love their shiny new smartphones and gadgets. It’s too much of a mental leap for westerners. They’d rather appropriate and fetishise the lives of impoverished Thirdworldians to a disturbing degree because it’s more earthy and real or sumshit. Facts are hard for farang :( :( :( :( :(

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 7, 2012

      some white western people think Thai people in Thailand don’t use rice cookers (?!?!?)

      ??????

      Do they… know… we have electricity?

      • Well, even though a few Western people know Thailanders have electricity and are aware of the existence of rice cookers. their thinking is that Thailanders (and other primarily rice-consuming countries and cultures) don’t approve of using those machines because it must be some westernised shortcut which compromises the purity of Thirdworldian cuisine. Or something. I think it’s the idea that every aspect of a Third World citizen’s life must be “challenging”, right down to how they put food in their bellies. If it’s not difficult and gritty, it can’t be authentic, apparently…

        Meanwhile, back in our reality, every Thai home I’ve been in – whether in a working class home in Korat or a well-off Bangkok household – has at least one well-loved rice cooker. I kind of want one which also does sticky rice and steamed cakes.

    • I don’t think I knew a rice cooker existed until mid-high school or college. I have no clue why, but growing up, rice was always cooked in a pot – I have a distinct visual memory of the white starchy stripes down the black pot. (these were some kind of really solid metal that almost felt on the outside like a chalkboard – they were heavy as crap and my mom hated them with a passion. I suspect they got them from the Navy Exchange way back in the 70s when my dad was briefly in the Navy to avoid the draft and to have a job)

      And I think I first learned about it from a family we were friends with (daughters both my age and my sister’s) from Japan that would bring in Japanese food from time to time, and mentioned the rice cooker. So I assumed it was something that just hadn’t caught on in the US/western world yet…

      • the twisted spinster

         /  June 8, 2012

        All the Cuban families I knew had rice cookers, but our own family didn’t because we didn’t eat rice all the time and also my parents were Depression kids so you didn’t waste money on fancy gadgets when here! Is a pot that works just fine! Anyway, years later I’m all grown up and I bought a rice cooker and I’m all “how did I live without you you beautiful thing!”

        Then I moved away and gave away the rice cooker and here I am in an apartment with a gas range and I tried to make rice in a pot. Charcoal rice does not smell good. So when my roommate said “should I get this rice cooker for fifteen dollars” I said “BUY IT.”

        Anyway, people here in the US have become even more ignorant about the outside world now that it’s supposedly gone global than they ever had been before, I swear. I mean, we used to want to know about other countries and how they lived etc. Our means were limited (the evening news, the occasional documentary, National Geographic, going there), but they were more valued. Now all that people have to do is turn on the internet they’re all “what’s it like living in your mud hut how do you get on the internet do you have refrigerators” and you know, I don’t even know.

        • The first time that I’ve ever been in a household that used a rice cooker was three years ago when the boyfriend and I got a used one from a friend of my mom’s upon moving in together in a new place. (I don’t really cook unless under duress, and it often turns out poorly and involves a smoke detector) When it started giving us crunchy rice, we actually replaced it because it was nifty, and the new one will cook rice AND STEAM VEGGIES in a separate section. It’s not quite as good as when we do broccoli in a pot with the spring-loaded satellite dish steamer (doubles as an awesome toy as a child), but it’s very convenient.

          We have a family friend who grew up in Panama and is terribly proud of being pictured in a National Geographic in a group of kids playing in the canal somewhere. I can’t remember if she had a bathing suit or was at an age that they didn’t care. You know, those primitive natives who don’t wear clothes…of course, her family were there as part of some military or engineering project and she’s fluent in three languages (and most likely was at the time, too – they’re Japanese and spoke that at home, and then she speaks Spanish and English). But that doesn’t make a good National Geographic picture/story.

          The US is not only becoming more ignorant about the outside world, we seem to be celebrating it. Which is terrifying. And more and more, the ignorance is spreading so that it’s not even just the world outside of the US, it’s parts of the country that aren’t familiar or are different. There are too many stories of people who won’t believe Hawaii is a state for me to think that’s just an urban myth. You can hear narratives everywhere about a part of the country that’s different, and if it’s too different, well, they must hate God and America, right? And as much as it pains me to say it, it comes from both sides of the fence. While I feel that the right has been worse about this, you still hear it from Democrats.

      • Hah. I’m used to cooking rice in a pot too. I encountered my first rice cooker a few years ago while visiting a friend(his wife is from China).

  26. So does that mean that you being an atheist has nothing to do with the morals you believe?

    Yes, it does. I don’t think I am particularly a better or worse person now than I was when I was a Christian (or if I am, it has nothing with my becoming an atheist), and I can’t think of anything I think is wrong now that I didn’t think was wrong then, or vice versa (except things I’ve changed my views on because of life experience).

  27. “In that case, if I ever meet you in real life I’ll punch you in your worthless face, and I’ll expect you to afterward explain to me why it’s not okay to punch you in the face. You will be obliged to do this slowly, politely, and respectfully. If your explanation isn’t up to par, I will have the right to punch you in the face again, as many times as I like until your explanation is up to my satisfaction. If it never is, well, you don’t get to punch me back or object or file an assault charge. Because the onus is on you to educate me as to why punching your face hurts you.

    Deal? Give me a time and place. I’ll see if I know anyone in the area and ask them to meet you for the face-punching session, to which you will of course agree to beforehand in writing with all the aforementioned clauses. Hell, do you want your balls kicked in too? We can arrange that, as well.”

    Let’s use a less hyperbolic (and more realistic) example, shall we? I’m a gay male. I was raised in a very small, very religious, very backwards Southern town. I know about homophobia firsthand. Hell, my home state recently passed one of the most ridiculously anti-gay bills in the nation’s history. While I recognize that I am privileged in many, many ways — I am a white male American, after all — I know at least a little bit about what it’s like be discriminated against and to have my rights up for a public vote.

    The thing is, the millions of people who voted for that bill aren’t all evil. Life isn’t black and white like that. Most of them are just ignorant, confused, fearful, or naive. When I encounter someone with ignorant ideas about sexuality, I try to educate them. Anger can be righteous and good, but in discourse, it often doesn’t work. No one is ever going to go, “Oh, that guy just called me a bigot and told me to fuck off. Maybe I’ll reevaluate my thoughts about the gays.” Sure, there are some people who aren’t worth arguing with, but everyone involved in this case — from Harrist to the commentators defending him — just seem naive or unaware about how offensive their speech was. Granted, I don’t know any of them, but you never know who might be open-minded enough to hear a reasoned critique and rethink their ideas — I’ve been surprised when people who I had previously written off as hardened homophobes ended up supporting LGBT rights. Angry rants are sometimes justified, but if you have an opportunity to enlighten someone and try to bring about even the smallest increment of societal change, why not do it? What purpose does it serve to just preach to the choir?

    It’s not like I can euthanize all the anti-gay people in the United States. The most I can do is talk with them and try to educate them about what being gay actually means. Do their ignorant comments hurt often? Of course. Is cussing at them or ridiculing them to their face going to help them change the way they think? Nope.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 16, 2012

      You’re assuming I’m here to educate. Education’s grand; if you have the patience to do it, awesome! More power to you. But I’m sure you recognize that not everyone will choose to react as you have, and if my blog existed for the purpose of hand-holding white men onto a path of enlightenment I’m sure someone would’ve let me know that, and it probably would be called something like “Welcome, White Man!”

    • As a note, I suspect there are people who are enlightened and who change their behavior (and absolutely reading habits) after reading acrackedmoon‘s blog. I have. Not sure how I originally found the blog, but even being an open-minded female person with friends from countries across most continents/hemispheres (I think Australia’s not represented, but there are people who lived in Antarctica), there is so much that I had never thought about in terms of how women, poc’s, and people from non-Western areas (or who appear to be) are often portrayed in our media. And how I can see it in the interactions and attitudes of people around me. When I stepped back, even when there was an individual book or movie where whatever choice that added to this made sense and the story was good enough or historical to be valuable in the cultural narrative, the combination of all the movies portraying non-Westerners make sure to send the same message. Same for poc’s, women, and many other groups. And the messages were not ones that I agreed with.

      I have changed my behavior based on this. There are books I will not read based on what I’ve seen of them in reviews in this blog or because something in the description sets off alarms in the back of my head telling me that ‘this is a story about how this white hero brings freedom to the dark-skinned creatures, then is declared king/helps them set up their government, because he is so much more advanced/knows so much more/is the hero’. So, even if it’s not intended, this blog is definitely educating some readers.

  28. Yes, well, I just stumbled upon you today after finding your review for “The Snow Queen” by Joan D. Vinge — great review, by the way — and was just thumbing through. You’re right; it is your blog. Thanks for not deleting or modifying my comment. I was worried about that happening.

    • acrackedmoon

       /  June 17, 2012

      It’s not so much just that it’s my blog but that I, obviously, haven’t chosen to engage Harrist in Killscreen’s comments section. To be sure if I did engage him directly, I wouldn’t be very kind or patient either–and neither, I suspect, would many other people I know who are from “global south” countries. They are just as fed up with this “oh being in your primitive noble-savage exoticland is just like going back in time a thousand years!” as I am, and to suggest to them that they should be nicer and more willing to educate the honky would be pretty insulting. People react to things differently.

      I wouldn’t even go around telling black people how to react to racism or that they should be more patient with racists, even though I also experience racism.

  29. In light of recent comments, I feel I should suggest a tasty treat for you to pick apart – namely, Charles Stross’s Merchant Princes series. It’s… okay with its female characters (for a start, the heroine isn’t a Sookie Stackhouse-esque mess of internalised misogyny, and most of her most meaningful relationships are with other women), but the writing isn’t all that hot, and it’s got this really itchy thread of Western exceptionalism going on. It’s one of those ‘let’s try to fix the civilisation of this parallel world’ stories, you see, with all the associated baggage.

    Oh, and the author was on the Hugo shortlist, which is always fun.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: