Brexit, Racism, Trump Part II

I think the not listening part is what's important. That gets tricky.  That is also what Black Lives Matter claims.  There is a certain Personality Disorder for which "You're not listening to me" means "You couldn't possibly be listening to me because you don't agree with me.  Anyone who was really listening would see things my way.  Therefore, when you disagree with me it proves you aren't listening." That is certainly my impression Black Lives Matter.  Yes, we hear you.  We all know that there is some prejudice by the police against black people, that this is not good, and it should be eliminated.  However, we don't think that's the whole problem, and you stop listening to us whenever we try to go there.

Is there a mirror here?  Are the Brexiters similar in their attitude, of claiming they aren't being heard simply because they aren't being agreed with?  The Brexiters aren't violent, and whatever racism they have is not as overt as BLM, but is it, at root, much the same thing - a refusal to see any view but their own?  They are certainly accused of it.

I'm trying to entertain the idea, but I just can't get my head around it.  I think one bit of evidence in favor of Brits actually listening to other points of view is that they themselves held different points of view not so long ago. The have long been frustrated with the EU - over beef, over chocolate - and have polled disapproval of it.  But packing up and actually leaving it has not been so popular.  That only covers the people in the middle, however.  Perhaps the confirmed Brexiters, that 30% that has wanted out no matter the ebb and flow of opinion?  Are they unwilling to listen, unable to be reasoned with?  Well, hmm, they haven't done a lot of marching and shooting about it, have they? No shutting down the speeches of others? No doubt some are bullheaded and can't be reasoned with.  Perhaps even a significant portion of them.  But the signs of aggressive refusing to listen just aren't there.

Lots of Europe was anti-EU because of unemployment long before the influx of Mediterranean refugees came in. As the newcomers swarmed into Greece and Italy people in Western Europe started to get worried.  They seemed rather...violent.  They didn't seem to be coming as devastated families of refugees but as opportunistic young men who were willing to riot at borders.  Along with this came all the assurances, accompanied by pictures of sweet children and young mothers, that they immigrants were a little rough around the edges, but were just fine.  I suppose they couldn't have tried to sell the idea by saying "these are mostly young men and lots of them are criminals and entitled, but we want to be generous to them anyway," but that would have at least been honest. The next step up was the one I think pushed it over, attracted those last few percentage points of Brexiters.  These men were clearly assaulting young women - in Germany, in Sweden, in Norway, in Hungary - but this was being downplayed or denied by the authorities.

The Brexiters have this suspicion.  No, these immigrants aren’t "just like us" except for living here for a generation. Our love of tea, and eccentric hobbies, and reading mystery novels, or watching weekly comedies is more than the sum of its parts.  It symbolizes the whole culture of we-didn’t-know-what. But now we know. They sexually assault women in public. Hundreds of them, thousands. However many want to work, there seem to be an unfortunate percentage of them that expect to be given things. Nigel Farage says we don’t want any more, and he’s a bit of an extremist, but we do say we want less.  Thank you.  signed The Public. Then the EU, with the support of the toffs – who aren’t seeing any problems in their neighborhoods – says we won’t get less, we’ll get more. That sort of attitude toward the people in the provinces tells then their culture is not merely eroding, as everyone’s does a bit over their lifetime, but is in danger of becoming unrecognizable in short order. 

It's the doubling down that did it.  The British complain a lot but have historically put up with a great deal.  Having been thrown a cookie would have been enough for many.  But virtue signalling being what it is, the Remainers couldn't bear to throw a cookie.

Apples To Apples

In discussing police practices, African-American crime, and excessive use of force there seems to be an underlying assumption all sides are making, which I believe muddies the waters. The two sides of possible problematic interaction are not the police vs. all black people, it is the police vs the people they actually encounter, on the street, responding to calls.  Most people, black or white, go about their everyday lives without interacting with the police at all.  We might see them as we drive, or if they are standing guard at some crowded event.  Situations with even the potential for problems usually involve driving offenses or accidents. 

 

Some policemen are just jerks; or worse, they are abusive and dangerous. Is the percentage of police who are jerks or abusive greater than in the population at large? Probably. Is the percentage of police who are jerks or abusive greater than in the black population at large?  Probably.  But those are the wrong questions. What is at issue is how the police are acting in the problem areas, where they necessarily congregate, and how the people there interact with them.  Most people just hanging around on the street, or drunks walking away from a concert, or even political protesters of any stripe are not dangerous – but there’s a much higher percentage of them who are than in the general population, and they can set the others off.  Even more, the people the police interact with when they are called to a situation have a much higher rate of being potentially dangerous.  Still low in each individual contact, but in the aggregate it means the police are encountering a lot of dangerous people.

In those situations, the police are more likely to be the reasonable person.  You might say that being more reasonable than a drunk or the person whose neighbors just called about them is a low bar, and you’d be right.  But still, it’s there.

However, the interaction between the police and the everyday citizens, the ones they usually don’t see, can be revealing.  Most everyday citizens make an allowance for who the police deal with all the time and recognize that the person they are talking to A) might be more than usually irritable, because of his life experiences over the last two hours or two decades and B) might have gone into police work for bad reasons to begin with. Therefore, the everyday citizen tends to act politely, even if they feel irritated. If the policeman is being a jerk to you, then, Mr or Ms Everyday Citizen, it’s likely he’s at least that bad to other people, and maybe worse. You have received inside information. It’s a little more ambiguous for black (or Hispanic) people.  It’s harder for them to discern whether this cop is just generally a jerk to anyone, or does this one have it in for black people especially? Well, the nice Mr. Policeman has the same problem with you.  You are being an ass.  Are you always an ass, only an ass when  someone tells you to do something, or just being an ass because I’m a policeman?

One of the towns that borders ours has had a few knuckleheaded, bullying policemen  as long as I’ve lived here.  This is mirrored nicely by their knuckleheaded and bullying selectmen and other town officials. They have treated people unjustly – usually each other, and to some extent have been consequated for it. Yet most people in the town go about their everyday business without having a problem with the police for years or even decades.

Public Political Stance

What is the best career move stance for a black sports media figure with national exposure (writers excluded) in relation to Black Lives Matter? I don't agree with violence in protest but I respect what they are saying, trying to raise awareness about the experience of black people in America. There is a second position that is risky and can only be occupied by a few, but also works, which is to blast them. You have a different audience and reputation that way, but it can keep a career moving.

What is the best career move for a current black athlete in relation to Black Lives Matter? For most, it will be a quiet nothing, keep focused on your team, and your sport, your cliches of all sorts, etc.  But a few can increase their visibility by being very much in favor of Black Lives Matter and showing themselves to be deeply involved in the community and willing to take risks. Or in congratulating others for taking risks without taking any yourself.

These people aren't stupid, they know what their business is.  That doesn't mean they are insincere, either, as they are likely to choose or lean largely on the basis of what they already think. Socially adept people just nose into the slots that are open - usually based on a persona developed over a lifetime, partly by intent, partly just following some crowd.

Hispanic writers and athletes have almost nothing they can say that won't torque somebody off.

White athletes and commentators are granted a few more choices, though even those are still pretty narrow, and their risks are higher if they say anything at all.

So have pity on public figures when they say things that infuriate you.  They don't get much chance for nuance, because no one is going to listen that long.  Writers, if they are skillful, are the only ones who can pull that off, and even they usually stay in one of the main tracks anyway.

Honest

Have I mentioned before my aversion to people using phrases about their own speech using the word "honest?"

Can I be honest with you?
I'm being honest, here.
Let's be honest:

I don't mean to make this a hard rule.  A hired consultant might legitimately say "Can I be honest?  No one in the company has any idea what your shipping costs are." Some people just grew up saying this a lot and it's their comfortable speech.  Some people would agree that they are actually trying to say candid, or frank, but just don't typically use those words and so settle for the more general "honest." If we are being honest can sometimes mean what it says.  However, it seems to more frequently mean "If you guys I am sermonising were more honest..." Of course, that is also using the dishonest "we," when the writer actually means YOU, you evil bastards; as in CS Lewis's The Dangers Of National Repentance, which I keep coming back to in highly politicised times.

Yet every time I back off from making it a rule, one of my more sociopathic patients will use it the very next morning, or Truth will show up in the name of some new group I am reading about that is peddling a particular view of reality that they can't endure being questioned too closely. Websites with the word "truth" in their title seldom have comment sections.  Just something I've noticed, I've done no study.

Over the weekend it was a Covenant pastor on his site, a youngish man who has a growing reputation in the denomination. Perhaps I was too ready to be accusing, as I have been uneasy with things that he has written before. But there it was, the declaration of honesty, and a few sentences later a statement that caused me to rear up and think "Wait a minute.  What he is saying is commonly believed by his group of friends but it's not established.  And it certainly is an enjoinder that those Other People in the discussion (who may include you, Charlie) should look at themselves and change their ways."

It's not fighting fair. Beware Christians, especially, using the word "we," as they just might mean "you."

Club Sandwich

I have decided that the club sandwich of my youth was considered elegant because not only was it triple-deckered (oh my); not only did it have toothpicks with colored cellophane curlies; not only did it's very name conjure up wealth; it was cut on the diagonal twice. We cut at right angles in our clan. People who cut on the diagonal were considered a little, well, showy. Restaurants might do that, trying to impress you, but Scandinavians actively backed away from such display for everyday use. If you went to a friend's house and his mother cut the sandwich on the diagonal, you didn't mention it, but you thought that perhaps they were getting a bit above themselves.

Your grandmother might cut the sandwiches for guests on the diagonal for an Occasion of some sort but for everyday - we weren't that sort of people. Relatives who had moved away might risk it - living in more glamorous places they rather had to - but we didn't.

Even as late as my college days, waiting on tables, I noticed that it was older women of the better sort who ordered the club sandwich

Biathlon

I had always thought of this as a very strange event as a child, even as an Olympic-following fanatic. Cross-country skiing, which was not yet an American craze except in rural areas settled by Scandinavians, coupled with target riflery, which I associated with military training or summer camp. I had heard the explanation that this was based on actual warfare of previous centuries in cold places and could get my mind around that somewhat, but it didn't ring true. The modern pentathlon seemed similarly pointless.  Yes, it was an interesting curiosity to be skilled in the soldierly arts that might, conceivably, be used in the 18th C*, but really now.  Get a grip.  Thus the biathlon was simply this bizarre hybrid, left over from Norwegians and Swedes having outsize influence on the early Winter Olympics.

It was not until many years later, while trying to accomplish some fine motor task outdoors in subzero NH temperatures late in the day that the pieces came together for me.  Marksmanship is hard enough anyway.  When you are in numbing cold and are significantly tired - not just temporarily winded where a few deep breaths can bring you back to peak form, but drained of your physical reserves - it requires discipline, concentration, and ability to block out distractions. A very difficult task.  Quite the impressive soldiers, these biathletes are, then.

Since then yet another athletic analogy occurred to me. The combination of fine-motor coordination, strength, and endurance does not occur in many sports.  Baseball players need fine-motor coordination, but don't get that tired.  Ditto divers, figure-skaters, gymnasts. Swimmers and distance runners get just as tired, but don't have to add any delicate skill to it. Tennis and golf both rely on this combination of skills a fair bit. Basketball, played with the legs and the tips of the fingers, requires a good deal of both skills.  Football, not so much for most of the team.  Yet the receivers, and even more the quarterback, have to have this quality of being exquisitely delicate with the hands after having been beaten up for a couple of hours. Especially in the extremer climates (heat is a different but still energy-sapping challenge), the quarterback is probably the closest equivalent to the biathlete. I figure that Cam Newton or Russell Wilson could actually have become excellent biathletes, had the money been there instead.


*Swimming, fencing, horsemanship, running, shooting.  Sure.  That's exactly what we picture was happening at Waterloo, right? Okay, it's artificial, but you have to admit it is an impressive variety.

Two Cheers for Jonathan Haidt

I am a fan, and his article about nationalism vs. globalism in The American Interest is quite informative. Yet I am disappointed.

Haidt is a man of the left, but has proven to be quite willing to question his own assumptions, and give an opponent a somewhat-even chance.  His research, which surprised even him, has been very much of the form "yes, those conservatives do have some irrational responses, but some of them are quite rational that we misunderstand and don't give credit for; and liberals have some irrational thoughts as well, that they turn their heads from and won't acknowledge."

In this essay one can tell that his sympathies lie with the globalist, urbanist, cosmopolitan, and secular values quite reflexively. He thinks those are ultimately the right things, and calls them tolerant, open, and freedom-loving.  He does balance this by noting that the nationalist views are not inherently racist, and it is unfair to label them as such, even though real racists can use them to hide behind. He demonstrates a partial understanding of what the nationalist sentiment actually is, rather than what it is sneered to be.

I waited then for the other shoe to drop, which Haidt does quite well, pointing out how current events are also increasing the authoritarianism of the left - in the loss of free speech on campuses where some things may not even be said, and everyone within reach is made to comply with political training; or in the inherent authoritarianism of regulations (showing that it's not an entirely bad thing); or a federal insistence on the narrow range in which your health insurance can be delivered; or how much illegal immigration you will accept, and like it.

That shoe never dropped.  Perhaps it is being set up for another essay in follow-up, or is part of a different discussion.  Whatever, it's not there now.  The essay is valuable.  I think conservatives need to contemplate what is happening to them and how their responses may not be as independently conceived as they have assumed. There are parts I thought unfair, but thought I had best at least try and accept, as there seemed to be at least some data behind them. Yet the last third of the essay you will have to write yourself, in your own head, as Haidt hasn't written it.

Update:  Grim has also posted and commented on this essay.

Adjusting To The Market

I focused much of my irritation on my own tribe, the Arts & Humanities Tribe in the early years of this blog.  My renunciation of - or escape from - them (while hopefully retaining their better values) was an ongoing discussion, and I know many here understood this at a personal level as well. I don't mention them so much anymore, because I feel I have beaten that to death. 

Except... these ongoing cocktail parties we call blogs change in attendees over time, and those who are newer may be unaware of that substrate.  It is ever thus.  Whatever new party you go to, there are already inside jokes, embarrassments that are politely not mentioned, and discussions that have already occurred. So if you have become a regular here only over the last three years, you might amuse yourself by browsing in a random month 2006-2011, or using the search feature for "humanities" or "arts." Some of the material is now dated. Some of it I would backpedal from - just a bit - and all of it I would edit and clarify.

That said, I bring them back after reading an article by a Nigerian woman who was a Philosophy major at Wellesley who then worked for Goldman Sachs about how the aspiring 1% from elite schools might do good in the world. (via bsking, via Scott Greenfield.) I thought of the A&H tribe, and their jobs, and how they will survive automation in 20 or 30 years.

They have figured it out.  They have trained their children to rent-seeking from the government. (See also: arts subsidies, educational grants, non-profits)

I don't know if that will last as well as they hope.  But it might.

To Duck or not To Duck (1943)

Eh. Deleted that rant. It got better, and I decided I needed to take a break. Enjoy the film, apropos of nothing. The part I was remembering starts at 4:00

Brexit, Racism, Trump, Part I

In the supposed populist revolt we are experiencing with the Trump and Sanders campaigns in America, coinciding with Brexit and rumblings of other European -exits, charges of racism and xenophobia have enjoyed a resurgence.  My default response is to disregard anything further the writer lays out, as they are clearly quick to judge, quick to insult, and prone to exaggeration.  If someone uses a milder term like ethnocentric I may stick around a bit longer. Because there is certainly something to the observation that people feel their culture or customs are being eroded or even taken, and they are trying to preserve something of Our Customs, Our Institutions, Our People.  When one culture dominates, those from other cultures feel left out. When the left outs create changes, either by law or by sheer numbers, the previous owners of the joint feel they have had something taken from them and push back.

This is not just racial and tribal.  It is noticeable when people move into a small town, turning it into a suburb. It's not like the old days.  Swedish churches have always had Luciafest, but when the families are more Italian and Korean and mixed ancestry they sometimes let it drop. Schools have traditions that fade for a dozen reasons.

Who gets to choose can be complicated, but there are some unwritten rules that people seem to acknowledge.  A.) Being in the majority has some weight.  When a new tribe moves into a place and eventually outnumbers the original inhabitants they change the culture more in their own direction.  B.) Whoever got their first, or more importantly, whoever established the institution (cleared the land, built the school, organised the choir) has some say. Obama's "you didn't build that" has enormous cultural implications that I'm sure were intentional.  C.) Whoever is willing to do the work now gets an important vote.

Much of the conflict comes from moving about so much these days.  People who come from there to here are used to having their own ways in the old place, and want to have them where they arrive. Yet isn't this a bit intrusive?  All fourth-graders take NH history here.  If I move to Michigan can I demand that they teach NH history to my children?  Am I right to move to California and complain that it's not enough like New England?

This isn't going quite where I planned.  One thing leads to another, and it's another example of learning by speaking, of discovering things yourself as you go.  Perhaps this will have to be Part I.

The people who want to keep their culture regard it as an innocent thing, something they deserve and have a right to.  John Derbyshire is clearly of this school and makes some solid points about it in one of his Brexit discussions.   Four things to note in that essay:

Roger Cohen, who writes a column called "The Globalist" for the NYTimes, bemoans Brexit because "...it's a personal loss.  Europa, however flawed, was the dream of my generation." Well, no. Your age bracket voted against it, Roger.  It's your transnationalist elite class that dreamed it. But even if it were true, why should your dream rule?  Who cares, really?  My tribe has dreams, too, and we're not going to get most of them.

Anthony Lane's tying the embrace of difference into the (implied) more advanced because open culture of urbanites, sounds a bit like our recent discussion of New York and American urban-fanciers http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2016/06/new-york.html .  Derbyshire separates that into separate elements quite nicely.

Derb doesn't notice or pretends not to notice that some of the Brexit anger is not anti-Mediterranean/Muslim, but anti-Eastern European, hating Poles because they have competitive skills and hating the Roma because they don't. Yet I think he is right in that the English would have put up with that without revolt, and even endured reduced numbers of Syrians and Afghans.

His contention that the English are annoyed because there are whole sections of major cities where there are no white Englishmen, because groups have taken over what used to be fish-and-chips neighborhoods, may be true but seems odd to Americans, who expect that's what cities are supposed look like.  Chinatown, Little Italy, Germantown.  We are getting closer to actual racism here, though it's not as pure as it's made out to be. People like things to look and sound as they used to.Nothing personal

There is a considerable problem that people's memories of how things used to be is often rosily inaccurate, and traditions which seem long-standing actually go back little more than a generation, but we'll tackle that later.  For now, let's have a song.

Hitchens On The Anglosphere

I ran across this interesting piece on the Anglosphere by Christopher Hitchers from 2007 while looking for something else today.  As I am going to put up my own take on Brexit sometime soon, I thought this would be a useful introduction.

Name That Cult

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Well. Nice lady working near me, has overheard enough to guess that I’m a Christian – Starts in by asking me if I’ve read the whole Bible. 

Odd question.  So my ears are immediately up for “What idiosyncratic interpretations of single verses are driving her people? Is this a cult, or just some heterodox spinoff?” First off she asks me if I know about the Female Image Of God.  So, cult.  Lots of people in mainstream Christianity put energy into correcting what they believe are culture-bound descriptions of masculine and feminine in the Bible, that are not fully accurate pictures of God.  But they use completely different language in describing that. Not bumper-sticker style.  There have been lots of groups through history which have made this duality one of their main doctrines.  The Shakers were big around here, and the teachings of Mother Ann Lee highlighted that idea.  So when my friend follows up by announcing that her church is the only one that teaches the Female Image of God, then I’m concluding “Oh, a new cult, that doesn't actually know much church history.”

 

She next switches to the day of the Sabbath. She’s quizzing me here (she thinks), asking "if you know the Bible, do you know this fact?" I’m pretty familiar with Seventh-Day Adventists, less so with Seventh Day Baptists, but I know there’s not Female Image of God teaching coming out of those groups.  So that’s confirming my previous impression: new cult. She looks surprised when I tell her that there are other groups that believe in Saturday Sabbath as still in force, unchanged. I’m prepared to pick that up with reference to Waldenses and some 17^th C Transylvanian churches, plus the SDA’s in the 1840’s but think better of it.  I’m dealing with an unarmed opponent here.  That she is indeed unarmed is confirmed by a declaration that “Constantine changed it.” Ah yes.

There’s more. “What about Passover?” as if she is checking off some list of unrelated surprises. So whoever this is also celebrates the Jewish festivals, and considers it an important point. The Armstrongites keep some distinctives, but have come over to generally orthodox Christianity at this point. And I like keeping Jewish festivals myself, though we haven’t done much of that since the boys were small. 

 

So I say “Your church seems to be very concerned about what everyone else gets wrong. That doesn’t seem healthy.  Different groups sometimes have good reasons for their beliefs.”  She nicely agrees but points out that it’s the Bible, not man, that contains the truth. I agree, but note that people disagree more about the Bible.  She repeats that it’s not man’s opinions, but what God says.  I have heard this from many mouths in my time.  What it means is “Everything that disagrees with my prophet is a teaching of man, and we don’t follow the teachings of man but of God.  So those others are wrong.”

So, this new cult that shares some features with Shakers, and SDA, and Armstrongism, but isn’t deeply close to any of them doctrinally is unfamiliar to me.  She tells me her church was founded in South Korea.  It’s the World Mission Society Church of God, and they got some other strange beliefs as well. They believe the Second Coming has already occurred, in the person of their founder.  That’s not uncommon.

Hero or Not?

A lot of people who thought Julian Assange was a hero have now immediately contorted themselves in some elaborate rationalisation. Others who thought he was a dangerous anarchist are feeling a strange new respect for him, equally automatically.  Even those who always regarded him as an ambiguous figure will find their internal evaluation of him affected. That last includes me, who regarded him as odious but probably necessary in the world, and now find him to be a dangerous fellow, but stand-up guy.

Here's the interesting part: We all change our opinion of Assange, not the people he exposes. The Clinton supporters will be unaffected. As the US military supporters were unaffected by his earlier revelations.

Except perhaps a bit.  None of us changes his mind all at once, but stories like these can contribute to rather thorough changes.

Trans-Everything

Which of us does not identify with Pat?


Okay, here's another from the same people. this one with a bit more bite. I hope involvement with this improves the job prospects of all these kids, but I fear that someone is going to speak to them quietly sometime soon.

The Challenge

As I have noted before, I work in an overwhelmingly liberal environment, and my Christian environment is split between liberals and conservatives. (My denominational environment also has many "not interested in politics" folks.) My closest family is center-right to paranoid conservative, definitely more GOPe than Trump; the next circle out is quite Arts & Humanities liberal.  My closest friends are 80-90% conservative. My FB feed, which includes many people from my early history, is fairly liberal as well.  All this is my data base for the following observation.

Many on the Republican/conservative side deplore the choice between Trump and Clinton. As a consequence, they talk about third-party votes, not voting at all, or calculated voting depending on how close their state is and what the congress looks like it's going to be, to minimise damage to the country. They are clearly conflicted and in pain.  (Yes, they also talk about Trump votes or Clinton votes, and most of them may end up there.  But there is significant conversation about alternatives, calculation, and political theory.)

My contacts on the Democrat/liberal side say they are distressed with how poor the choices are, and how upset they are about Hillary's dishonesty as well as Trump's authoritarianism, etc.* Sigh.  What hard times we live in, they say.  As a consequence, they talk about "how bad Trump is."  There is no mention of third parties, no mention of not voting, no mention of strategic voting on the basis of battleground state, divided congress, etc. This has gone on for months, and I have decided I no longer believe them.  Collectively, that is.  There are a few whose genuineness I do not doubt. Yet I think they are simply fooling themselves.  They are going to vote for the liberal, whoever it is, and if they can't have Bernie they will vote Hillary, with no serious intellectual questioning of themselves. It's all just a pose.  Whether they are trying to convince me or themselves I can't say. But I have heard only one Democrat at work say "I won't vote for Hillary, and I've been a Democrat all my life." None at church or in my larger Christian group are showing any actual signs of anxiety, other than ritual incantations about how bad the candidates are.

So now that we are later in the game I will read motives, though still a bit tentatively.  They deceive themselves.  They are not deeply upset over the choices.  It's business as usual.  It doesn't matter in the least what Hillary Clinton has done, they will vote for her.  The wringing of the hands is all display.

I contend that this is exactly what we see in the national discussion as well.  Where are the George Will's and NRO's and Ted Cruz's among the Democrats who are stepping away? What major media figures on the left are going full-out against Hillary and stating they just can't vote for her because of conscience?

The Challenge:  Provide contrary evidence.

If you cannot, you must ask yourself, not to please me but simply to be an honest person in your own private life, why not?  Who am I, that I cannot?


*I have also contacts on that side who think Clinton is just fine and are going to vote for her unapologetically.  That is a different argument, which I will not enter here.  I will note, however, that those always mention that she is unfairly accused because she is a strong woman, which conservatives cannot abide. A revealing argument.

Update:  This premise isn't holding up well under inspection.  See comments.

Language Reveal

Even though I am sometimes consciously aware that I should be using terms for writing rather than terms for speaking in my online uh, conversations, I gravitate to the latter because that is how it seems to me.

I answer an opponent in a comment section by writing "You said that..." and I will use formulations about my own communication that can suggest only speech, not writing, such as "...and I say again..." My writing voice is very strongly based on my speech, and those who have not heard me live would find it both familiar and jarring to compare my writing to my talking. Most of my original audience were folks who knew only the latter.  My current audience has only a dozen who have talked with me.

I am certain I am not unique in this - such things are not possible.  But I think I am on the far side of whatever measuring rod might be fashioned for this, as it has been commented on often. I smile, laugh, and have an animated face - and also narrow my gaze or sharply look over my glasses, with a bite to my voice, more than others. It's pretty vaudevillian routine the Wymans have, and I even on the strong side of that.

I so wonder what other people think when they write, whether they just naturally say or have conversation.  Standard internet language would suggest that we think of this as talking more than writing. Though such terms as posting and bulletin board would suggest the opposite.

Tut, tut

Germany clearly needs stricter gun laws.

Murderers

Technically not.  A few were convicted of Manslaughter  or accidental death something else instead, or were never charged, but the hospital has good info... I know at least nine murderers.  There may be more.  I didn't keep track so much in the early years. I never much though about them as a group until this year, when a gun-control question nudged me into generalising.

I think none of them shot their victim.  Two drownings, two vehicular homicide, two arson, two stabbings, and a pushing-off-a-high-place. I know a couple of other negligent homicides, of failing to call the ambulance because they were too high/ too angry. Oh wait.  A strangling and an assault with a baseball bat that resulted in death. Two others who I can't remember how they killed their fathers.  Only three were actually on my caseload - the others just had an understandable notoriety around the hospital.  Most were not convicted of anything.  So eleven, or sixteen, or maybe a few more. A smothering and a throwing a child out a window.  So 13/18.  Quite a lot.  But then, I've been doing this a long time. No shootings, I don't think, except maybe those patricides. I am counting three attempted killings where the victim survived, paralysed, just because the perpetrators would seem to be in the same category.

I don't know what to make of it.

Update: As of Tuesday it will be 14/19. The quickness suggests there have been more. but i haven't noted them as they passed by.  Patients are patients.  They have problems that need addressing, and I am only involved in the criminal side tangentially.

Stuff White People Like

The fashion has passed, but there is still humor, and wisdom, in returning to the site Stuff White People Like.  It was always, of course, stuff young liberal white people like, with outspill to related others.  Even I, who grew up in a related culture, like some of this stuff.  A young black woman at work who I sent the link to years ago said "I know I'm half-white, but am I really this white?  I like most of this stuff, or my friends do."  I reassure her there was a related phenomenon Stuff Educated Black People Like (Baked chicken.  Talking about moving to Atlanta), in addition to the above qualifiers about what type of white people we were talking about. Notice the repeated references to the idea of coolness and even morality as being a positional good, as in this example:

Often it can be easier to find common ground with a white person by talking to them about something you both hate. Discussing things you both like might lead to an argument over who likes it more or who liked it first. Clearly, the safest route is mutual hatred. When choosing to talk about something that white people hate, it’s best to choose something that will allow white people to make clever comments or at the very least feel better about themselves.

A Bit Of Orwell

We contemplate that Britain has a culture that it wishes to preserve, and this has something to do with why the Brexit vote went as it did.  Americans generally applaud British culture, or at least, applaud that they want to keep their culture. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, all the British seem to like having some immigrants around.  What has happened recently is that there has been a sharp uptick in the number of immigrants, enough that a majority of people have said "too many." Yet I don't hear anyone but the very few saying "no immigrants."

What is this culture they hope to preserve?  Paul McCartney made affectionate fun of it in "Penny Lane," but what might we list that is something of a continuity in British culture that does not sound ridiculously trivial or is not immediately recognisable as something that happens in other countries as well?

George Orwell wrote "England, Your England" in the early 1940's. It is a good example of the importance of reading primary sources.  I am familiar what other English writers of the 20th C have said, Chesterton especially, yet this carries surprises.  One can immediately tell that American culture is historically related to it, but we have built something quite different with the same legos.

Just for humor, I resurrect this Field Guide to the 15 Real Nations of Britain that I passed along a decade ago. Plus, now that I've mentioned it, I have to play the song.

McArdle on Brexit

Megan McArdle, who nearly always notices things I didn't, and puts things far better than I would even when her ideeas are what I already thought, has a very solid Brexit article Citizens of the World? Nice Thought, But...

In many ways, members of the global professional class have started to identify more with each other than they have with the fellow residents of their own countries. Witness the emotional meltdown many American journalists have been having over Brexit.

We've been saying that for years. I have always thought of that in terms of American liberals sucking up to their similar class in Europe, but it is now clear to me that this works in reverse as well. It is not all American A&H crowd slavishly going along with whatever their betters at the BBC tell them. It does work in reverse as well. European elites may sneer at Americans generally, but they have Americans they love, and they also seek to impress, just like adolescents here.

Saving a Few Percent

Last night, before there was shooting in Germany, where I believe they have "reasonable" and "common-sense" gun legislation*, a few people shared on my FB an essay about a cute little three-year-old girl having to learn to stand up on a toilet in a drill at school to be safe in the event of an active shooter. How heartbreaking it all is.  What a terrible world, etc.  And we won't even try.  I am presuming they don't have a similar opinion of fire drills.

I was caught by the numbers that she knows gun control won't prevent 100% of crime, but doesn't know if it will help 1% or 2% or 50%. How will we know if we don't try?  Which seems strange in a place where there already are lots of gun regulations, different in many states, different country-to-country and we have some ability to measure and compare. If you've actually got something out there that will reduce violent crime by 50%, I'm pretty sure we're all on board with listening to that. No, she is writing about size of magazines and the like, so I'm betting she is reacting to school shootings and the like, not drug deals gone bad or hunting accidents or suicides.

Just a little back-of-the-envelope calculation here...4-6 incidents a year @ 2% would be about one less incident of 4+ deaths every 10 years.  Or maybe it's number of victims per incident, which would be one less at Orlando. If you look hard enough, you can retrospectively find an incident, maybe even two or three over the last few decades, where some law that you are imposing retroactively would have made a difference.  Unless the shooters just bring multiple guns, of course, which they seem to commonly do. Real life is more dynamic.

*crickets chirping tonight.