…and this is a 
We're happier out of a straitjacket than in one.
I saw something wonderful at a science fiction convention a few weeks ago. At these events, people often put on odd and extravagant costumes, and I saw one rather obese young man who'd made a minimalist choice: he'd come as one of the Spartans from the movie 300, which meant he was standing in the crowd wearing a red speedo and a bright red cape…and nothing else.
Now imagine this same young fellow at an event at your high school. It would have been brutal. I know; when I was in high school, I was a little poindexter, ostracized, laughed at, and treated like a space alien, and I was treated mildly: being even more different, being the fat kid or the gay kid or the homely kid or whatever excluded you from the Jock Clique or the Heathers or whatever ideal the majority of the student body worshipped meant merciless torment and unremitting cruelty. Often in our culture socialization is achieved by maltreatment and unkindness and is directed towards shaping superficialities.
But this fellow at the convention…he was smiling and laughing and having a good time. Other people were smiling back, and they were complimenting him on his costume — he was being rewarded, not for having a jock body, but for being open, a bit ironic, and being unashamed of who he was. And that was a beautiful thing. He wasn't alone, either; these events are the kinds of places where people who are misfits in the conventional world are free to blossom and be themselves, and being different is valued.
This does not mean that con culture is value-free and open to everything, or that it is entirely anarchic: it means that the group's ideals are focused on properties of the mind, in particular creativity, imagination, and boldness. Conformity becomes the sin. Rules that infringe on freedom of expression, that condemn someone for who they are, become the new transgressions.
I was also reminded of this mind-set by recent events at Comic-con, where the hateful fundamentalists of Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church showed up to do their usual stunts and to damn everyone who doesn't follow the strict rules of their narrow interpretation of the Bible. This is the antithesis of what I liked about cons, so it was like a matter-antimatter collision on the public streets. And the wonderful thing is that the con attendees responded wonderfully, laughing and joking and being flamboyant. This was also a beautiful thing.
The other commendable fact of this event, and I know this because I know these kinds of people well, is that if the Westboro Baptist picketers had walked over to the Comic-con counter-protest and said, "let's talk", there would have been a cheer and a welcome and people would have enthusiastically joined in conversation — because the WBC people are weird, and the con people love to embrace strangeness.
Unfortunately, I don't think the members of the Westboro Baptist Church could do that. One of the terrifying properties of fundamentalist religions is the way they demand conformity: they lay down strict rules to regulate how people are allowed to think and behave, and often how they are allowed to dress and speak. Questioning the dogma is forbidden. Getting into situations where they have to think for themselves is dangerous. The community must be policed so that odd notions do not pollute the minds of their children or themselves.
Perhaps the cruelest aspect of conservative religions is the way they insist that all people must follow one straight and narrow path, regardless of the fact that people are diverse, and they impose endless misery on so many people by fostering fear of deviation. It's the Chinese foot-binding of the human mind.
Now I am not trying to imply that the wild and crazy crowd is completely free of dogma: the caricature of the Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons is an excellent counter-example, where sometimes even the oddballs can get caught up in the details of their fantasy canon and forget to have fun while carping over fidelity to an ideal. In this context, I also can't condemn all religions, because you know that in that crowd there are many members of liberal religions, many people with strange ideas about spirituality, and more than a few techno-utopians. If you're going to encourage weirdness, weird ideas will flourish.
And that's all right. As long as no one is forcing others to accept Jesus as Lord, or that Star Wars is better than Star Trek, then we're doing fine. The human mind should be a playground, not a military camp.
I do confess to some bias. I've chosen academics as my career, which, although it does have some significant strictures on behavior (I could not show up to teach a class in a speeedo and a red cape…probably), it at least offers a great deal of intellectual freedom. I also grew up in the 60s and 70s when, well, you had to be there…
This generation, or some generation soon, I'd like to see the hippies win. Peace and freedom, man.
Besides, it makes the fundies and Republicans freak out.
Comments
Posted by: Tabby Lavalamp
|
July 25, 2010 11:11 AM
I agree about wanting to see the hippies win. Even liberals often seem to have a distaste for them, and I don't know why.
Posted by: Shala
|
July 25, 2010 11:18 AM
>>God hates sentries.
LMAO
So does my spy!
Posted by: eric.kinateder
|
July 25, 2010 11:24 AM
Just don't try to steal someone's seat at a panel!
http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/violence-breaks-out-comic-con-07-25-2010
Posted by: Marshal Beak
|
July 25, 2010 11:25 AM
Talk like this will get you Guest of Honor at a furry convention! (And that's a Good Thing™!)
Thanks. ^.^
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 25, 2010 11:26 AM
The counter-protesters would have welcomed debate for another reason as well -- honest people love to debate the issues. They want to make their case, and point out where the other side is wrong. Not because they're egotistical (though they may be that as well), but because they know the importance of taking your ego out of a disagreement, and focusing on what it is you're talking about. Truth, or its best approximation.
That's what religious people often don't get -- and I don't mean just the fundamentalists. The so-called liberals and moderates are often even worse when it comes to the idea of discussing an idea. Instead, they want to frame debate as "shutting down the discussion." Or refusing to "respect" other people's beliefs. The only thing you're permitted to say, is "you should keep believing what you believe, it's fine with me" or the sensitive dears will wilt. Telling someone they're wrong, is shutting them up.
It's the opposite. You shut people up, when you tell people to shut up -- not when you eagerly say "let's talk." Debate is an honest dialogue. It's surprising how many defenses of religion are really just elaborate reasons for why they should never, ever have to debate what they believe on its merits. They get a free pass.
For the Phelps, this free pass comes in the form of presuppositionalism. They're right because they're right, and that has to be the starting point for discussion. For others, the free pass seems to rest on the fragile, beautiful, need for the personal validation of faith.
That would be fine, if faith were nothing more than a personal style -- such as choosing to wear nothing but a red speedo and a cape. But there are presumably supposed to be truth claims attached to faith. We know the difference between playing dress-up, and being deceptive.
Posted by: Cat's Staff
|
July 25, 2010 11:27 AM
I always thought that was one of the benefits of tenure...Posted by: Teshi
|
July 25, 2010 11:27 AM
I know why:
For many young people, most of whom I know are socially and economically liberal, hippie-ism represents something that is unethical in its disconnection from reality.
For example, modern hippies are often connected, either correctly or in the minds of others, with alternative lifestyle and alternative economic and governmental policies. These are often viewed as impractical, or unworkable by many people.
Take vegetarianism. A lot of people react to vegetarians as being denialist of the human omnivorous tastes and therefore impractical. The same might be said about people who despise banks and refuse all war: they are viewed as people who have an unworkable understanding of economics or an overly optimistic assessment of what pacifism leads to.
These are usually regarded as not wrong in the "we-love-war" way but in the "this is unworkable and would only lead to more suffering" way.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
July 25, 2010 11:31 AM
I like science fiction but I am one of those weird weirdos who dislikes both Star Trek and Star Wars.
Yes, I go out of my way to be a minority in a community of minorities.
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
|
July 25, 2010 11:34 AM
Fandom is a Way of Life.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
July 25, 2010 11:40 AM
God Hates Sentries?
But... but they're so cute! That's the best part of being an Engie!
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
July 25, 2010 11:49 AM
Also Sastra's post reminds me of Captain Picard.
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth! Whether they be scientific truths, or historical truths, or personal truths! You don't deserve to wear that uniform."
...Star Wars is still better though. *Hides in a bunker*
Actually it's only recently I've come to appreciate why science nerds seem to like Star Trek, so I don't mind much.
Posted by: raven
|
July 25, 2010 11:52 AM
So true.
One of the worst is the Mormons. Everyone has to be white, heterosexual, go on a mission, get married, move to the suburbs, become a right wing extremist, and pump out as many kids as the wife's uterus can stand. Any questions, just check in with Mind Control Central for what to think.
My friends in Utah sometimes call them the clones.
Of course, not everyone can or will fit into this straight jacket. Must be miserable for them.
Posted by: rprcvl
|
July 25, 2010 11:56 AM
God Hates Ewoks. Something we can *all* agree on.
Posted by: joseranulfo
|
July 25, 2010 11:57 AM
So are a red speedo and a cape the new Freedom of expresion symbol?
I need to go out and buy some of them.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey
|
July 25, 2010 11:59 AM
Star Trek vs. Star Wars is a non-argument.
Star Trek is Sci-fi (at least it tries to be) and Star Wars is a Space Fantasy.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
Posted by: W. H. Heydt
|
July 25, 2010 11:59 AM
Re: #9
Fandom is Just a Goddamn Hobby.
(For those not fen, the debate is between FIAWOL and FIJAGH.)
--W. H. Heydt
Old Used SF Fan
Posted by: Teshi
|
July 25, 2010 12:01 PM
Ahem, Rutee #11, you missed a bit making your quote make less sense than it does:
blockquote>"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth! Whether it's scientific truth, historical truth, or personal truth! It is the guiding principal on which Starfleet is based. If you find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform."
It's in the Picard song, except for the "about what happened" bit.
Oh wait, that's acceptable here.
:D
Posted by: juhavs
|
July 25, 2010 12:03 PM
Thank goodness for this Sunday Sacrilege - I almost felt the presence of the Spirit, Higher Force or some other Ennobling Moving Power...:) Anyway, that was a real beauty for a sacrilege...
Posted by: Draken
|
July 25, 2010 12:07 PM
Noted.
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 25, 2010 12:12 PM
But hippies are smelly...
Posted by: Mr.Nerdz
|
July 25, 2010 12:14 PM
@8
BURN HERETIC! BY FIRE BE PURGED!
Proud nutcase here. The sort of guy who enjoys a good world of warcraft related topic. Never get one though, most people think I'm kinda mad for liking it so much. But, it's how I roll.
At school, I don't see too much of the ostracising that would be expected. Part of the joys of being in a grammar school, while there are enough imbeciles to give a bit of grief, there are also enough likeminded people. But hearing what it would be like at a normal secondary school, I'd have been chased out by the first year.
And yeah, sometimes you have to bash the vegetarians. Not the honest animal lovers, but those who consider that it's healthier to cut back the meat than properly cut back the junk.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
July 25, 2010 12:19 PM
I love the smell of marijuana in the morning. But I learned from South Park that hippies hate Slayer, so I need to find another group to identify with. :/Posted by: Samantha
|
July 25, 2010 12:20 PM
I only wish my single convention experience had been that positive, but I unfortunately saw the non-unorthodox side of a con.
I went with one of my female friends of a similar size and, as she was really into it but I had never gone before, I ended up borrowing her costumes. On the first day, she was Catwoman and I was Sailor Moon. On the second day, we switched.
I cannot tell you how many people thought that us wearing costumes that were "so revealing" was an invitation for them to grab at and grope us, and then get all self-righteous when we told them to stop. However, they were better than the dozen or so people who came up to me and told me that I was ruining their con because I "clearly wasn't really a comic geek the way they were". Not that they were entirely wrong, but their reasoning was that I was "too pretty to be a comic geek"!
I was an outcast in school because I wasn't willing to pretend that I didn't like school and learning and because I didn't play by "the rules" of the popular kids. It sucked in a lot of ways, because all the outcast "groups" rejected me because I was a popular kid minus the fake tan and pound of make-up, and the popular kids rejected me because I didn't care about being popular.
I guess what I found out at that con was that most of that doesn't really change. I'm sure most of the people who were upset at me being there thought of me as just another iteration of the kids that bullied them in school, only now I was in their comfort zone. The others... well, there's always people who think that someone wearing something other than a full snow-suit means they're looking to be hit on. Still, I won't likely ever go to another comic/anime convention because it seems to just make me and a good number of the people I encounter unhappy. I guess I just look too orthodox for anyone to accept my unorthodoxy.
Posted by: llewelly
|
July 25, 2010 12:22 PM
Well. Maybe. But good sense has lost horribly.Posted by: abb3w
|
July 25, 2010 12:30 PM
I've been reading Karen Stenner's work on the Authoritarian Dynamic, and the above observation ties to a point that I think she missed. She focuses on authoritarian predisposition and normative threat to try and explain the sources underlying the authoritarian attitude expression of the high-RWA segment that Altemeyer identifies.
However, some people tend to conceptualize social norms more broadly than others; a wider range of behavior and activity is considered "normal". As such, it requires much more deviation from their normative median before triggering a perception of normative threat. Those generally predisposed to narrow normative concepts are more prone to sensing normative threats, and triggering an authoritarian response. Stenner doesn't seem to address this directly (although I'm not all the way through her book); however, many of the factors she identifies as relating to authoritarian outlook seem (to me) likely to result in narrower normative concept of the world.
The Westboro Baptist Church show very narrow norms; they react massively to tiny deviations in all sorts of areas. SF and Comic convention fans have norms almost pathologically broad (as well as a rather different normative median than mainstream American society).
And while PZ has fairly broad societal norms overall, he does have (at least) one more narrow area. You can do what you want, but you don't get to demand others show equal respect to every (IE: "your") particular IS-based claim about the universe, you don't get to demand that numerical dominance be treated as prestige, and you REALLY don't get to call just any bit of hand-waving flummery and woo "Science" to try and obtain a share of the prestige associated with Science.
Thus, where such antics finally go so far past his norms as to set off his sense of normative threat, the reaction may be confused by the inattentive with the same sort of intolerance as the narrow-minded (or narrow normed) religious are notorious for.
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
July 25, 2010 12:39 PM
Godd DAMN that was a tasty breakfast, Professor Myers. The only items missing were fresh-churned butter, maple syrup, and of course, bacon.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 25, 2010 12:41 PM
this is offensive to me
apologize or buy me a camera
Posted by: Zugswang
|
July 25, 2010 12:44 PM
THE ALMIGHTY IS A SPY!!!
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
July 25, 2010 12:45 PM
Bah. You're ignoring the corollary to Clarke's Law:Any sufficiently involving hobby is indistinguishable from a way of life
Posted by: Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy
|
July 25, 2010 12:45 PM
@ #6
I could not show up to teach a class in a speeedo and a red cape…probably
I always thought that was one of the benefits of tenure...
As a teacher, tenure or not, wearing that outfit you're probably gonna get repremanded....by your students.
Posted by: dsmwiener
|
July 25, 2010 12:46 PM
I grew up in Venice beach in the 70's, so I was exposed to the Hippie culture. They were great for teaching you Chess, making tables out of old doors, and fun music, but the vast majority of them never did that much - as hippies. Most of them ended up getting law degrees and MBAs and moved to the burbs.
My point is that hippies are great, but a society made up, or dominated by, hippies would simply collapse or be overrun by more goal oriented types.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
July 25, 2010 12:54 PM
High school cliques, and churches, demonstrate pretty well that conformity appeals to a great many. Even many who have been rejected by many other conformists, then went off and started a cult, sect, or some such thing.
So that's a battle that we'll never win. Best we can say is that quirkiness and intelligence get a bit more respect in the computer/information age.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Nurse Ingrid
|
July 25, 2010 1:04 PM
I love this post. Nerd culture certainly helped me escape from awkward adolescence and find my way to happy atheist adulthood (thanks, Douglas Adams).
I also love the inclusion of the "flowers in gun barrels" photo. I have found that picture compelling ever since I first saw it in my high school history textbook. A few years ago, I learned that there is an amazing story behind it.
The young man with the flowers is George Harris, later to be known as Hibiscus, who was a founding member of the outrageous and influential theatrical drag troupe The Cockettes (think beards and glitter). The photo was taken when he was 18 years old, en route to San Francisco to start his new life.
He died of AIDS in 1982.
With all due reverence to Hibiscus and the original hippies, though, I have to say that I find the current hippies, at least here in San Francisco, to be heavily influenced by woo spirituality, "alternative medicine," weird diets and fasts, and whatnot. Annoyingly enough, so are a lot of the punks.
Posted by: Sunday Afternoon
|
July 25, 2010 1:25 PM
Sastra (#5) for a Molly!
Posted by: irenedelse
|
July 25, 2010 1:28 PM
@ Nurse Ingrid: Oh, the original hippies were already into all kinds of woo. UFOs, Eastern spirituality (more or less re-invented, à la Maharishi Mahesh Yogi), "new religions", crystals, etc.
Posted by: F
|
July 25, 2010 1:29 PM
Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM @ 8
QFT
Posted by: Molly, NYC
|
July 25, 2010 1:33 PM
raven @12 - And they're just a little inbred at this point. I'm living part-time in the Northwest, where there are more LDS, and it's interesting that you can often tell them on sight. They're nice-looking and all--tall, healthy, and just too Caucasian for words--but it's a distinct physical type.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
July 25, 2010 1:34 PM
Westboro is correct - Justin Bieber is the Devil's disciple.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/07/justin-bieber-devils-disciple.html
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 25, 2010 1:40 PM
There's a point being missed. If 'the hippies winning' to you means everyone has to be a hippie, then you're merely swapping one uniform for another.
But if you consider a society in which it's recognised, accepted, and encouraged that it takes all kinds of fruit to make fruit cup, then there's nothing wrong with the goal-oriented types running the place, so long as everyone doesn't have to try to fit their mould.
That would be the hippies winning.
Posted by: george.wiman
|
July 25, 2010 1:48 PM
"Bam!" /Elzar
My next-door neighbor plays the bagpipes. Never early in the morning, or late at night, but sometimes while electronic church "bells" are audible from a half-mile away.
Love that guy. It's the sound of nonconformity.
Posted by: Molly, NYC
|
July 25, 2010 1:56 PM
Excuse me, but how did you get the idea that hippies aren't goal-oriented? I've been a hippie since girlhood, and managed to get several college degrees, run a business, rear a family, and generally stay out of trouble.
And btw, I'm certainly more fastidious than your average tea-bagger--now there's a smelly bunch.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 25, 2010 2:05 PM
I'm not sure the hippie brand is completely tarnished. Sure, like all other far-left brands (in the US) it has been tarnished and battered around so that in polite society you're not supposed to have anything to do with it (Oh no, you can't be a hippie, they were lazy layabouts and impractical, no you can't be a socialist, they are Stalin incarnate, no you can't be an anarchist, they are rich people's kids who don't know a fucking thing about life).
Aka, one isn't supposed to.
However, I've seen far more youth resisting this, being willing to flirt with socialist thought and socialist self-identification and the netroots is full of people proud to take on the DFH (dirty fucking hippie) appellation owing to how fucking often those decried as DFHs have been correct on every goddamn issue under the sun.
There might be some problems with a society dominated only with the most stereotypical hippies of the 1970s, but I can tell you now, it would be a much better society than the one we have currently, dominated as it is by "I got mine, fuck you" spoiled brats and "Jesus will Rapture us, so it's okay to destroy the planet" RWA Christian Nutcases.
Just saying.
On the post in general. Yup.
There is an inherent diversity to the human animal. Not only in what makes up a human (something the RWAs can't accept either), aka, what race or mixture of races and cultures they can be, what sex they can be (there's more than two), what sexuality they can be, what gender (since a lot of gender is culture, hoo boy, what diversity can spring), etc...
But also what said diverse race can bring to bear. Fascinating thoughts, creations, inventions, norms, interests, hobbies, self-expressions, etc...
If everyone was allowed to be their true self for a few days, unhindered by thoughts to "norms" and the consequences of transgressing them, it would be fascinating to see the results. What people really find interesting to protray themselves as, to be, to act.
The stuffy, corporate influenced, cage we often pare ourselves down to, doesn't help, merely reinforces the notion of homogeneity, aids the bullies in feeling justified to "police" the deviant and "force them in line" (mostly talking about nonviolent deviations). Often it can be easily justified. "It's for their own good", "They wouldn't be as employable", "What about the example they are setting for my children", "Why should I have to think, rather than blindly follow?"
Oh wait, the last one is the real reason. The terror of those who locked up their diversity deep inside, went through hell to conform and disappear into the "mainstream", making themselves miserable in the process, angry and lashing out at those who didn't seem as bound and gagged into "normality". How dare they "deviate", when I couldn't? How dare they remind me of my cowardice, fleeing into the comfort of the majority and the misery it brought? They will pay, they will do as I have done, because I was denied the freedom of that self-expression.
And you see it in all minority rights battles. It's in essence a battle for the freedom to let the human diversity show, to give people options in their lives, to be themselves.
Feminists fighting against strictly policed "gender roles", so all sexes can live in peace with who they want to be. Racial minorities fighting to allow their culture to live in peace rather than erased by white culture and white history and white policing of racial hierarchies, so all races can enjoy and partake of each others cultures as friends and allies. Sexuality minorities fighting for everyone to openly be the sexuality they are and end self repression and the misery it causes and also fighting for the right of consensual sex and its expression, so a straight couple doesn't have to be ashamed of superhero night in the bedroom. And atheists and humanists fighting for the right of people to believe what they really believe, to see the world as it is, and not feel strangled by rules and dogmas telling them the boundary of the world and their interaction with it, preventing people from feeling haunted if they disagree with their pastor.
All of these battles are the same battle in essence, whether we accept the diversity of man, and allow ourselves free and open expressions of ourselves, or whether we deny it, try and lock it in a cage and pretend it never existed, not for the betterment of everyone, but to ensure that misery for all will make some better than others.
I know I'm on the side of reality and honesty.
I've seen the diversity of the human animal in all its glory. I've seen spectrums at Prides around the world, liberal and anarchist districts and groups, Punk caves and Metal halls, Comic Con, Anime Expo, APE, Renaissance Faires, the simple streets of cities, where diversity just happens.
I've seen it all. And I've seen the cages in their extreme denial of life, suburbs, megachurches, the households of Rapturist Fundamentalist Christians.
And seeing it all, I wonder how anyone, outside the fear of reproach we so violently give the transgressor of norms, could honestly want the latter over the former.
Sadly, the fear is seductive as is the illusion of safety (really, just the constant fear of even narrower and narrower transgressions (did you like a video game containing magic, play some D&D, skip church one week to go to the hospital, smiled at someone slightly less white than you, etc...)), and so we constantly need to fight tooth and nail for each step. Steps quickly forgotten and assumed to be normal, once won (of course women and blacks should be allowed to work, gays shouldn't be killed and arrested like dogs, etc...).
Eventually, we'll see the day when we can just be, the crazy, diverse mess that is humanity. Halloween every day as the Dead Kennedys said. The anime convention hall on the streets of the city, where an obese man in a Spartan speedo is the least odd thing you've seen today.
I'd love to see that world, but know I won't. But I'll fight my entire life so that someday, in the far future, that will be the world.
Sorry for the long post.
Posted by: Shala
|
July 25, 2010 2:05 PM
THE ALMIGHTY IS A SPY!!!
Rev up those pyros, cause I am sure hungry for some deicide!
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 25, 2010 2:26 PM
The Spider's Tail
http://www.viddler.com/explore/iSheahan/videos/63/
Posted by: dsmwiener
|
July 25, 2010 2:31 PM
Brownian@35
Yes, in that way the Hippies did win, because they broadened the definition of what was acceptable in society.
Molly@41
No group is all the same. But, in general, the population of Hippies I observed as grade school student were nice, educated, and not too goal oriented. However, like most things, hippiedom is a phase for most, and most of the hippies I knew moved on.
But, everyone is different, and I congratulate your goal oriented hippiedom.
Posted by: derelicthat
|
July 25, 2010 2:33 PM
Cerberus @42
That is so excellently said that I can't come up with any response but Hell Yes!
Posted by: Robert H
|
July 25, 2010 2:52 PM
Posted by: jalankatz
|
July 25, 2010 2:53 PM
The hippies are hated by mainstream liberals because the liberals hate being called on having adopted as their own corporate welfare policies under a new name.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 25, 2010 2:58 PM
Cerebrus @ 42
Some thoughts on your thoughts.
I always thought hippies were useful.
I self identified and lived as a 'biker' from 1970 to 1990. We did the same drugs, listened to a lot of the same music, and hippies always had hippy girlfriends, which I used to feast on at their horror and the lady's delight, they crave bad boys after suffering boring stoned dipshits and their ridiculous universal vibe crap.
Nothing like a hit of acid and a snort of meth then tearing through the mountains on a ferocious Norton before fucking all night long.
Just two months ago I went to Humbolt County for a Community Radio convention sponsored by KMUD and hung out with actual hippies, Judi Bari used to broadcast from there. She managed to unite the loggers as a union organizer with the environmentalists opposed to clear cutting paradise, for which she was blown up.
After all these years, I finally met some hippies who didn't take any shit and they are as hippy as it gets. I have totally re-assessed my take on hippies.
Sorry, but it's not thoughts and norms that keep us down, it's rent and payments to the empire to 'support the troops'. If you get the 50 hour a week grind off your ass, you have plenty of time to examine your norms, I know this because I was single for 40 years and never gave a rat's ass about transgressing anything.
Now I have kids and I have to show up 45 hours a week, as well as my wife, just to scrape enough money up to put a straight A daughter through a third rate state college.
You can feel as hippy as you want, but it's not how you feel, it's the hard grind of living in a degenerating empire surrounded by fucking idiots and a ruling class that owns 90% of everything, fighting tooth and nail for that last ten percent. Five hundred Alan Watts lectures won't change that.
Posted by: heatherly
|
July 25, 2010 3:07 PM
@Cerberus: *hugs* But absolutely worth every word!
I think sometimes the openness to everything can be detrimental--cons also brought us the Open Source Boob Project, and I've encountered far too much woo from fans.
But...yeah. I can't imagine life without my fannish/geekish/crunchy hippieish friends. :)
They weren't the ones that taught me to think, to question, to wonder, to be willing to be wrong, to love learning--but they were the people who taught me not to be ashamed of it.
Cheers to a playground of the mind.
Posted by: Numenaster
|
July 25, 2010 3:11 PM
I feel compelled to point out here that Westboro Baptist Church members are more like Scientologists than they are like Mormons, in the sense that they have been conditioned into behavior through some pretty serious brain laundry. It's not an accident that the entire "church" population is pretty much Fred's descendants--you could not recruit anyone to it unless you started when they were too young to defend themselves.
They also are not so much a BELIEF system as a BEHAVIOR system: yes, they cherry-pick the most violent passages of the Bibble and add their own nastier stuff besides, but they are not trying to convince anyone (and sometimes don't seem too convinced themselves). As stated at this site, they are neither proselytizing nor even debating, only attempting to provoke a reaction, to keep the lawsuit industry going. It's all they have to live on, after all.
They sent a contingent to my town (Portland, Oregon) in April, and I was part of a troop of counter-protesters who followed them all over town (I was the one with the huge rainbow golf umbrella, perfect for blocking anyone's view of just about anything). I saw a small (about 10) group of grim people toting around every visual hot button they could carry. The "blood-stained" flags tied around waists and trailing on the ground are a good example of this. WBC used to focus their ire strictly on teh gayz, but when teh flag became an item of secular worship after 9/11, then trampled flags became part of their uniform.
Most of the WBC people will not, in fact, respond if you try to talk to them in a reasonable tone. The one that engaged briefly with a guy from Center for Inquiry just went quiet after a while: they are not there to defend their ideology, and in fact seem to avoid thinking about it. And only one of them actually did any chanting and singing--the rest stood or slowly paced with their signs like people who are only working at this crappy job until something better comes along.
Of course the adults among them probably won't be able to break free of the cult by this late point, but the miserable-looking kids might. Certainly they have an example of happy people having fun right in front of them: counter-protesting is great fun, even if you don't have a Bender costume! I urge you all to get out and try it! It SOUNDS like you're heading out to commit insurrection (my man was prepared to post bail for me) but your biggest dangers will be blisters and sore throat from out-singing the WBC people. OK, and mild brain damage from using Twinkle Twinkle Little Star to out-sing them with. Free speech: part of a nutritious breakfast!
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
July 25, 2010 3:12 PM
Me too. Flower Power!
Posted by: vesey
|
July 25, 2010 3:16 PM
Westboro Baptist Church has become the false stereotype Christian much as the the drugged out dirty and barefoot hippie was the false image 40 years ago for anyone considered "non-conformist" for that time. Neither is any more representative of the real Christian or non-conformist than is obama of real democracy...........
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 25, 2010 3:18 PM
scooter @49
Yes, but we carry on the "norms" from desperate corporate employment into our free time. Then we police the "norms" of others "for their own good", looking out for their "employability".
And the image we have of the narrow arc of which we can be "employable" is always far narrower than what is actual employable and often excludes being anything other than white, male, middle-class, Christian, etc...
And so you have blacks nearly killing themselves with "skin lighteners" and bombing their hair (to kill the "kinks") so they'll be "more employable", i.e. whiter. And you have trans people being told they must live their entire life as a lie that'll probably drive them to suicide in order to conform to the narrow gender presentation allowed to be "employable". And you have women being forced into ridiculously narrow gender presentations in order to be "employable". And gays must stay in the closet "to be employable" and so on and so on.
And the thing is, as abhorrent that is in "professional life", it'd be one thing if it stayed there. But no, when one gets home, when one is doing their regular everyday thing in time which should be 100% theirs, suddenly all that crap carries over.
The gender role policing, the belief that gays should remain closeted, people being afraid of living out and proud as alternative anything for fear that "it'll get back to the office". No time left to really transition until the gender dissonance has you swinging from a light fixture. Eventually you are such a bundle of neuroses that the only real time you can "be yourself" is semi-annual events like conventions, Faires, Halloween, etc...
And of course, that ruling class that keeps us all down, frightened for our livelihoods that we'll sell ourselves in a heartbeat (i.e. Fear), is run by the same denialists of human diversity. The racists, the sexists, the homophobes.
And they don't budge unless people fight.
"Employable" used to directly bar women and blacks as in don't bother applying. This was in living memory. That's changed. Many other barriers are crumbling and despite the fear campaigns, most businesses don't really give a shit about what you posted on your personal blog 7 years ago. Most of them are interested in the fact you had a personal blog because they are a bunch of antiquated dinosaurs being left behind and they want your help.
In short, we give far more leeway to the chains than we ought to.
Ties and power suits in the boardroom shouldn't at all interfere with a weekend street that looks like Anime Expo or Comic Con. But we let it anyways, using it in the largest example in our fear of transgression. Letting the conformity steal away all of our lives, rather than enough to survive financially.
It's the real meaning of the personal is political. The political forces fuck our personal lives and we make certain unfortunate compromises for our survival, picking what battles we fight.
But we do need to fight some of the battles. For the sake of who we are as people, rather than the corporate and social forces that want us to deny it and have lives with enough money to live but sad pathetic lives barely worth living.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 25, 2010 3:24 PM
Numen @ 51
Matt Dillahunty has pointed out many times that the Westboro Church acts out on the christian doctrine shared by the majority of fundamentalists.
They are only freaks in their media strategy behavior, their beliefs are mainstream among white trash christard pinkBoys, their beer addled brooder hens, and cross-eyed inbred spawn. That would be close to half the population of our country's great nation.
Posted by: Numenaster
|
July 25, 2010 3:34 PM
scooter @55,
I am saying that their demeanor is quite different from other Christian fundamentalist public noise-makers. WBC people don't block your path, like anti-abortion protesters. They don't scream in your face, like anti-immigrationists. They don't sing in a large group to encourage themselves, like teabaggers. They don't threaten violence like militia kooks. They don't act like people who are afraid, and whose fear has given birth to hatred.
They act like people who have given up and are doing what they've been told so things won't get worse for them. They behave like the abused children they were when their relatives began indoctrinating them.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 25, 2010 3:37 PM
Diversity and non-conformity is a scary thing to fundamentalists, because it opens up differing thoughts. They hate diversity because it allows them to be questioned. Look at how people like AFA Bryan Fischer are scared at the Latino population because they are more open homosexuality. Openness is not something they want. Otherwise they wouldn't be fueding about which church is right.
When I was at pride, there was openness and diversity. When I went to the
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 25, 2010 3:38 PM
Boxes.Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
July 25, 2010 3:40 PM
vesey @ #53, wow. Three true scotsman -fallacies in a row, and in such a short post!
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 25, 2010 3:40 PM
Cerebrus @ 54
You're preaching to the converted, I'm 55 years old and out-danced most of the youngsters at the Phish concert in chicago last June, I work at a place where I stand out for lack of tattoos and piercings, but I am making half the money I made when I was 30.
I hang out with total freaks and artists, and we're all being phased out, we don't have free time. That was something my parents had.
BTW if you wanna know what I do with what's left of my free time, here's my radio show from last week on teabaggering slobs vs commie fags and socialist cockroaches:
http://acksisofevil.org/audio/inner277.mp3
unfortunately, you can only do this on community radio. If we had real public radio I could get paid something.
Posted by: SaintStephen
|
July 25, 2010 3:40 PM
Cerberus in #42:
Pretty awesome stuff. For a 3-headed Hell Hound. ;)
Yes, I'm throwing you a bone. In fact, take 3 of them:
Post marked as EXCELLENT.
Post marked as EXCELLENT.
Post marked as EXCELLENT.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 25, 2010 3:43 PM
(whoa what the fuck, I accidently hit submit too early)
Okay. When I was at a César Chávez charity, there was openness and diversity. The Asian Pacific Student Program Board, the same thing. But when I went to my first Baptist church, there was no openness. In fact, I was told by my friend that I was forbidden to argue against the speaker (it was a creationist seminar) because it as "rude". what she really meant is that it opened a dicussion, which is not something they want. They want the conformity. They want you to believe exactly what they tell you.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 25, 2010 3:50 PM
scooter @60
True, as are you.
Being young and growing up in the hole left behind has made it blindingly obvious that my generation is (financially) fucked before we even began. The fact that my partner made double minimum wage and that only meant she lost money slower rubbed in the lesson.
It's the big reason I take up the self appellation "socialist" even though I'm not actually a pure socialist and really want something akin to Denmark's economic position. Because we need some people fighting against the insane monster American Capitalism has become.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
July 25, 2010 3:53 PM
Look at how people like AFA Bryan Fischer are scared at the Latino population because they are more open homosexuality.
Latino Catholics. The study showed that Latino Evangelical Protestants we about as bigoted as white evangelical protestants.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
July 25, 2010 3:59 PM
Ah, true. Forgot to mention that.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 25, 2010 3:59 PM
MAJeff @64
Almost like it was religion (and political affiliation and age, but those are side points) that was the big correlation rather than race.
Like religion is the big problem fueling the hate and because homosexuality pops up everywhere (being as it is wholly natural), racial groups don't tend to have extraordinary* negative responses.
*Extraordinary deviations akin to that for religion. Different races may have different flavors of homophobia, like the way white homophobia mostly fixates on gays being some kind of plague carrier, whereas black homophobia tries to equate blackness with straightness and view black homosexuality as a "white infiltration". In other words, there is a diversity to being a bugfuck nuts hater too.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 25, 2010 4:05 PM
Numen
Which would be fine if they were not the dominant culture and every public official didn't have to sniff Jesus butt, they might as well swing a fucking chicken over their heads every time they say God bless Umerika.
You see these motherfuckers as poor abused brainwashed children?
Wake up and smell the boot in your face, you are the most despised minority in this great country's nation, and you have pity on your oppressors? What the fuck is wrong with you?
Are you some kind of dry drunk Xian who wants to love your enemies?
I give no quarter to these skum, too many of them so few lions.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
July 25, 2010 4:10 PM
Denmark's changing over to American Capitalism. Slowly, but surely. My girlfriend is going nuts over it. She HATES the coming changes, because she's... you know, not insane.
Posted by: Numenaster
|
July 25, 2010 4:18 PM
scooter, calm the fuck down. I'm distinguishing between WBC and all the other Christian fundamentalist noisemakers I mentioned in #56.
I can tell the difference between people who choose these insane creeds and those who haven't recovered from having it beaten into them. Can you?
Posted by: hinakuu
|
July 25, 2010 4:55 PM
Agreed. Hippies should most definitely win.
Posted by: Cosmic Snark
|
July 25, 2010 5:05 PM
the Chinese foot-binding of the human mind.
Great way to put it.
Posted by: seriesdivergentes
|
July 25, 2010 5:59 PM
Hey! Of course Star Wars is better!
Posted by: tuckerch
|
July 25, 2010 6:11 PM
Samantha @#23
I've been in SF Fandom for decades. I want to personally apologize to you for the actions of a few arrogant assholes.
I'm sorry that you were insulted and that you were groped. I'm ashamed of my fellow fans for these actions.
I hope that some day you'll decide to give us another chance.
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
July 25, 2010 6:18 PM
Hey, I was at that convention and those people were most certainly NOT accepting of unusual costumes.
Almost nobody said anything good about my Adolf Hitler outfit.
It took me two weeks to grow back the ends of my mustache. Fascists!
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 25, 2010 6:58 PM
I've written this before but it bears repeating:
From the end of World War II until about 1970 a nuclear family could live in reasonable comfort on the earnings of one adult. After 1970 it became common for both adults in a nuclear family to work just to maintain the same lifestyle. By 1990 many families were going into debt-- refinancing their homes, running up credit card debt, buying cars with 60 month loans, etc.
The class war is here, folks, and the rich are winning.
Posted by: Leigh Williams, Feminist, OM
|
July 25, 2010 7:13 PM
Cerberus #42 for the Molly.
Beautifully done, Cerberus.
"Eventually, we'll see the day when we can just be, the crazy, diverse mess that is humanity. Halloween every day as the Dead Kennedys said. The anime convention hall on the streets of the city, where an obese man in a Spartan speedo is the least odd thing you've seen today."
That's Austin on our best days.
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
July 25, 2010 7:22 PM
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
July 25, 2010 7:24 PM
Do you have a bursar at Morris?
Posted by: Robert H
|
July 25, 2010 7:33 PM
Cerberus @63
This is why many of the aforementioned DFHs decided to change the patterns of how they lived; it was obvious that the Amerikan Way o' Life™ was a sham, didn't provide for actual happiness (except for the oligarchs who rolled in the lucre thrown at them by the middle class (remember the middle class?)), and wasn't going to be able to sustain itself indefinitely. Although it's harder to do so now than it was 40 years ago it's not too late to reconfigure one's life to live sustainably, both ecologically and financially.Posted by: Newfie
|
July 25, 2010 8:20 PM
and sometimes, you can just sit down with a stranger, and talk about your cats, even if you don't agree on much else.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
July 25, 2010 8:42 PM
Good grief that pic is hilarious. :DPosted by: morriganscrow
|
July 25, 2010 8:44 PM
As a young'un, I used to write ST:TNG porn, featuring Data and/or Worf. *is ashamed*
Now, at 50, I wear tie dye tops and embarrass the heck out of my transman son.
How things change over 35 years....
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/zmdVMnhz09DGcD.DeeAlCQb.Z2ipGYitoXINnA--#ccb68
|
July 25, 2010 8:55 PM
I am offended! Insulting Star Wars by comparing it metaphorically to jesus cripes???!?!! My DOG man, think of the children!!!
Posted by: otrame
|
July 25, 2010 8:59 PM
Or like Madison, Wisconsin in the mid-1970s. The Hari Krishna guys used to love it when the state basketball tournaments came to town because all the country kids would stand around gawking at them. No body else ever paid them any nevermind.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 25, 2010 9:19 PM
[OT]
ThirdMonkey:
Star Trek may be Sci-Fi, but it ain't Science Fiction, because it cares nothing for scientific plausibility. Technobabble doesn't count.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 25, 2010 9:31 PM
Sure, like dilithium crystals don't power warp engines and you can't beam aboard a space ship with a transporter. Next you'll be telling us the Borg don't assimilate people. :-þ
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 25, 2010 9:48 PM
Himself, those examples aren't too bad, but I'm old enough to have watched first-run episodes as a child.
I remember, having seen Plato's Stepchildren, looking forward to succeeding episodes featuring the telekinetic powers introduced there. Boy, was I ever disappointed! :(
(A memorable episode, for me, was The Deadly Years, which caused me to have a bad nightmare that night. My then-carers very nearly forbade me to watch more episodes after that (but I prevailed via the tantrum gambit)).
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
July 25, 2010 10:47 PM
Actually, that's a toughie for me right now. I've become “mostly vegetarian”: I haven't bought any meat since March, but I haven't turned it down at family get-togethers, friends' barbeques, and the like. It's not entirely impractical, as you say, but it's definitely “awkward” when the menu has at most one vegetarian option that's about as appetizing as “deep-fried horse-shit in skunked toadstool batter on a bed of thistles”. It's actually harder than I thought it would be. I think I'll ultimately end up being a home vegetarian and a public semi-pescatarian.
Posted by: Marella
|
July 26, 2010 12:10 AM
Being a vegetarian isn't like a magic spell, it isn't all ruined by one sausage. If your goal is to minimize suffering then every pork chop you don't eat is a victory. There's no need to bash yourself up about imperfection. Do what seems reasonable to yourself, there is no veggie god judging you.
There is an article in last week's Newscientist (I have a subscription) about meat eating you may be interested in. It argues that the most sustainable world is one in which small amounts of meat are eaten rather than none at all.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 12:25 AM
Marella,
— Here's a pork chop. Want it?
— No, thanks.
— Seems a shame to waste it...
<Om nom nom nom>
--
Have you considered whether your sentiment is more or less wishful thinking than, say, "Every pork chop you don't eat is a pork chop someone else will eat."
Posted by: tdcourtney
|
July 26, 2010 1:05 AM
I'll stick with my red beanie, speedo, and glock.Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 26, 2010 1:32 AM
I guess Samantha @ 23 is long gone but I got my ass grabbed in San Francisco, halloween night at a Jerry Garcia concert in the mid eighties.
I was in drag wearing a grass hula skirt, which gave me hips, and I had a very large loose fitting bra which i put water ballons in with the knots turned outward for nipples, and the whole thing was kind of low slung and jiggley, and I wore a full face mardi gras mask.
I dance like a slut anyway, but going gurl was a rush, I never did a total drag thing before.
Anyway, I had a cadre of loser guys sort of dancing around me, and this asshole in a jean jacket and greasy straw cowboy hat fucking grabbed my ass.
You have no idea how surprised he was when I jacked him up and threatened to rip his lungs out, my voice is a dead giveaway.
But here is the real kicker.
I saw an acquaintance who is a sleazebag, so I sort of wiggled around him for awhile
He was there cheating on his girlfriend with this very pretty Vietnamese girl, but he was totally checking me out, so I goofed him for awhile also letting the Asian girl in on the joke and I ended up taking her home and we had a relationship for a couple of years.
Whenever the Dead was in town she would come and stay with me, her name is Amy and she was from Seattle, if anybody knows her say Scooter says hi.
But I got a real lesson in being a buxom hottie trying to express herself dancing, and also, I got my water ballons grabbed too.
Totally pissed me off and I had to shift my entire consciousness to allow for the existence of malePigs, in understanding women.
I'm not shy around women but I would NEVER grope somebody, it was a real eye-opener.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
July 26, 2010 1:39 AM
The answer to "which is better Star Wars or Trek" is obviously; Babylon 5.
@ Tis Himself.
I believe Skeptoid addressed this, pointing out that the standard of living has also increased. If you're willing to live at the level of comfort of 1960-70 you can be a one income household.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 26, 2010 1:44 AM
Cerebrus
You speak for me as well. If capitalists played by the rules there would be no need for a revolutionary consciousness, but this game is being run by gangsters.
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 26, 2010 1:50 AM
Numen @ 69
Sorry I got a little carried away, thing are stressed in Scoterville, got a kid going into hospital today for an operation that is only necessary because we have half-assed insurance now, so we can't let it ride because who knows where we'll be in five years.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
July 26, 2010 2:41 AM
Marshal Beak wrote, "Talk like this will get you Guest of Honor at a furry convention!"
I suggested it for FurCon in San Jose, and people like the idea. An introductory zoology class taught by PZMeyers would be well-received!
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 26, 2010 3:43 AM
huh. I read the whole thread, and am disappointed to not have seen a link to this yet: The Dirty Fucking Hippies Were Right.
Anyway, vegetarianism is one of those things I'm personally very conflicted about. As long as I eat food from the grocery store, I really shouldn't eat meat. But I simply can't not eat meat... so the only guilt-free solution for me would be to grow my own meat, feed it weeds and other inedibles, and make it shit onto my garden, so it becomes part of sustainability rather than of the coming energy and food crises
Posted by: Nepenthe
|
July 26, 2010 3:46 AM
@John Morales
And every gallon of gas you don't burn is a gallon of gas someone else will burn. This is the same bullshit attitude that stymies every attempt at mass action.
NB I'm not saying that if the hot dog is about to go into the garbage can that I'm not going to eat it. (After it lands is an entirely different story.) But when I attend a picnic, the hosts buy fewer hot dogs to begin with. It's not a matter of me turning up my nose at the perfectly good animal flesh already there.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 26, 2010 3:48 AM
oh yeah, and this: http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-got-what-america-needs-right-here,11356/ (could have been better with less sexist and homophobic language though)
Posted by: scooterKPFT
|
July 26, 2010 3:58 AM
Those fags at the Onion are total bitches
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 3:59 AM
Nepenthe, so what is your answer to the question I posed Marella?
You sure it isn't just being realistic, given human nature?
There's a reason humans have canines, you know.
We're omnivores.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 26, 2010 4:06 AM
wtf are you even arguing, John?"it's easier to get 100 people to cut their meat consumption by half than to get 50 people to go veg, but the benefit is the same" is a perfectly sound argument, and it isn't about saying no to an already bought for piece of meat but about reducing demand for meat. and that counts for every pork chop that isn't bought (more accurately than "every pork-chop you didn't eat"). That such losses in demand would be greeted with stronger advertising and attempts to create more demand are a separate issue and have more to do with Consumer ?Capitalism than with human nature.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 4:50 AM
Jadehawk, worldwide meat consumption has been monotonically increasing, and this looks likely to continue given demographic trends and increasing affluence in formerly-poor countries.
If the issue is animal suffering, one way to ease that certainly is to reduce meat consumption without changing current practices.
Another way might be to encourage ethical animal husbandry and slaughter (e.g. by preferring "free-range" products).
What am I arguing? Well, I'm of the opinion that it might just be easier to minimise animal suffering than to minimise demand for meat.
That would be a bit like having your cake and eating it, no?
--
Ideally, sometime in the future most meat will be grown in vitro from cell cultures; I believe there will be substantial rewards for any company that can implement this (for now futuristic) technology and produce a good (perhaps even better than the natural) product.
--
I'm not unsympathetic to the sentiment Marella expressed, and I certainly respect her stance, but I find it rather naive.
Most people will not deny themselves meat for such an abstract reason, IMO.
(BTW, one of my sisters is an ethical vegetarian, but she will eat eggs from our chickens, because she knows they have a good life.)
--
PS Bacon.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 26, 2010 5:02 AM
you make it sound as if animal cruelty were the only reasons not to eat meat (if that were the case, then your argument would be accurate). The amount of energy and food that goes into producing meat is a far bigger issue I think: in the middle-to-long-term, we simply can't afford to eat as much meat, produced the way it is, as we currently do. It's just one more of these things that keep on getting worse the more places in the world become able to have a "western" living standard. And just like all the other stuff (pollution from industry, CO2 emissions, etc), we need to find ways to reduce and reverse it (first at home then elsewhere, because the other way round is just assholish and will merely result in resentment, not in actual reduction).
I'm against elevating personal choices to "the thing that will save us all", but let's face it, we can't even begin to create a less meaty culture without vegetarianism and similar choices becoming normalized first, and maybe even an admirable quality.
Unless of course you're just overall pessimistic about the ability of humans to get thru the current resource/energy crises, at which point any conversations about how to change the world for the better are pretty much moot.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 5:18 AM
[meta]
Jadehawk: over to The Thread, as I fear I'm derailing this thread.
Posted by: shonny
|
July 26, 2010 5:28 AM
Can you call yourself a sci-fi afficiendo without having read Jack London's Star Rover?
As to space and/or time travel sci-fi series, and all that, only the Poms are good at it, - Dr. Who and Red Dwarf!
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
July 26, 2010 5:40 AM
Jadehawk OM
You have neatly stated my reasons for not eating meat. I don't describe myself as a vegetarian but not eating meat is easier than cutting down. I guess that shows poor impulse control!
I agree: sometimes it is inappropriate to insist on a personal preference.
A few years ago close friend was killed in a road accident and less than 24 hours later her mother prepared a meal for us including meat. I think refusing in such a case would indicate dangerous fanaticism.
"dangerous fanaticism". tautology?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 5:41 AM
Shonny, Star Rover isn't science-fiction (or even sci-fi).
It's pure fantasy.
Your second claim is subjective, so like with the rather obese young man (to whom PZ referred) who'd made a minimalist choice, your bold stance is accepted (even if not shared).
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 5:48 AM
SteveV,
No.
A person can be dangerous without being fanatical, and fanatical without being dangerous.
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
July 26, 2010 7:23 AM
Agree with first clause, not sure about the second.
But then, IMHO, I'm only mildly dangerous and not at all fanatical.
Posted by: KingUber
|
July 26, 2010 7:24 AM
But Star Wars is better than Star Trek!
Doctor Who is better than both of them, though
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 26, 2010 7:54 AM
Hippies
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 8:06 AM
SteveV, the first clause suffices.
--
That said, you might have a point on the second.
After all, Mohandas Gandhi was a fanatical pacifist, and certainly very dangerous thereby.
Not so sure about fanatical stamp collectors, though. ;)
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
July 26, 2010 8:09 AM
Hippies
Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher
|
July 26, 2010 8:15 AM
Oh No?
Sorry about the Daily Nazi link;-)
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 8:18 AM
Rev BDC, #112 is, like, totally blowing my mind, man — you know?
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 8:22 AM
SteveV, I concede on the second.
(Please don't find and link to some fanatical health nut! My brain needs R&R, already.)
Posted by: bbgunn071679
|
July 26, 2010 8:43 AM
SteveV @77:
Nice reference to the movie "Educating Rita." Don't know if UM Morris has a bursar, but I'm sure a few creotards have felt like they've been buggered by Herr Professor.Posted by: The Countess
|
July 26, 2010 10:51 AM
Raven @#12:
When I went to Eve-con in D. C. about a decade ago, the Mormons were having a conference at the same hotel. The matter-antimatter collisions were hysterical. One in particular stood out for me. A group of Mormons in their suits and carrying their books stood in front of an elevator. When the elevator opened, a group of Klingons were inside. No one moved. Then, one of the Klingons growled at the Mormons, making them all nearly piss their pants. I don't recall any commingling between Mormons and SF con goers but if it happened it would have been very amusing.
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 26, 2010 12:07 PM
Hear hear!
However, emacs is better than vi, and anybody who disagrees is being sent to Hell. (A very special type of Hell, that is, where you cannot speak unless you preface it by saying "i" or "a" -- but then after that, you have to say "escape" or else anything you try to do, such as walk around or go to the bathroom or whatever, will be translated into words instead of actions)
Posted by: jay.sweet
|
July 26, 2010 12:18 PM
Jadehawk:
Not disagreeing with this at all, but it's worth pointing out -- since you were responding to John Morales' post which suggested, among other things, moving to free-range meat products -- that the energy efficiency argument doesn't really apply to pastured animals. While it is true that pasture-fed animals are less "energy efficient" than plants, this only holds if we fail to differentiate between different energy sources. You can't eat clover and grass. Right now, farm animals are the most efficient method we have for extracting food energy from clover and grass. And trying to turn every square inch of pasture into an intensive farming operation has different dire environmental consequences.
That said, the thrust of your argument is still true, for this reason: The vast majority of meat eaters -- myself included -- will find themselves eating some amount of factory-farmed meat regardless of their ethical/environmental/moral views, simply because of its ubiquity. I think I know maybe one meat eater who is opposed to factory farming and manages to avoid factory-farmed meat 100%. I certainly fail to do so.
And in any case, the amount of meat consumption we have in this country could not be sustained with pasture-feeding alone, so until the rate of meat consumption is vastly decreased, the energy efficiency argument still holds.
I just point it out because it's important to understand that the ideal endpoint from an environmental and energy-consumption point of view would still involve a moderate amount of our food supply coming from meat. That is not an argument against vegetarianism, of course. It's merely an in-principle defense of meat-eating (though admittedly not a very good in-practice defense at the present time).
Posted by: H.H.
|
July 26, 2010 5:09 PM
I know this thread is all but dead, but if this is the costumed man in question, then I don't think he was going for a Spartan from 300. I think he's supposed to be Zangief from Street Fighter.Posted by: faisons
|
July 26, 2010 5:37 PM
Oh PZ, look what you did - ya made me get all teary-eyed!
But you hit the nail on the head. That's EXACTLY what's amazing about convention society. And yes, I can see people complimenting the Grand Spartan guy on his boldness and his costume. Because that's how geeks work.
I only wish I'd been at ComiCon. I'm going to Dragon*Con though. Tis awesome stuff.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 26, 2010 5:39 PM
jay.sweet, I'm aware of this. if you read my first post in this thread, you'll notice that I mention possibly keeping my own animals to be fed on weeds and provide manure for the garden, for exactly the reason you mention.
Feels like I'm going to have to pre-face every meat conversation with a warning that I'm talking specifically about the mass-produced meat necessary to provide the amount of meat currently consumed :-p
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
July 26, 2010 5:44 PM
@120: we are used to that. And you forgot the options of r,R,I,A ...
Posted by: Stephen Wells
|
July 26, 2010 5:46 PM
@122: no cape!
(in the voice of the designer from Incredibles, of course)
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 26, 2010 6:34 PM
H.H.
<checks photos>
Sure looks like it, and he's doing a damn good job of it, too!.
PS I wouldn't refer to him as obese; perhaps a touch corpulent.
Posted by: Maldoror
|
July 26, 2010 8:40 PM
The term "hippie" basically has no meaning these days. On the one hand, it refers to kids who identify or try to imitate the "lifestyle" of the late 60s counterculture in terms of drugs and music, but are generally not as politically radical. On the other hand, it's become a catch-all insult for any activist with left-of-center political views. Generally the people that throw the term "hippie" around derisively just hate any type of political activism that "interrupts" their daily grind. You wouldn't believe the self-righteous, petty bullshit I heard from over-privileged students when our food workers went on strike (for living wages and for accusations that the company bullied and intimidated employees from unionizing). I think it's sad state of affairs in this country and a sign that the rich 1% have truly won over a complacent population that political activism is treated with seething hatred by so many people. They seriously believe that the "choice" to simply work for someone else and the right to vote is the only voice anyone (poor) needs and that its a grievous violation of their own rights for anyone to disrupt their day over something that they don't have to worry about. "Take an economics class" seems to be the only kind of response you'll get out of these people. *sigh*
Posted by: EDC
|
July 27, 2010 7:36 PM
As a speculative fiction author who is also a Christ-follower, I am embarrassed by these folks. If you read any of the biographies of Jesus found in the Bible, you'll quickly see how he spoke out against the judgmental religious and embraced those who they did not approve of. It's funny how the participants of SDCC are more Christlike in that way than those who profess Jesus. For that I am sorry. I apologize to those at SDCC and to you who are witnessing this... stupidity. We Christians are missing the mark and missing it badly. If God's existence is true, then his heart is hurting right now at what we are doing. Again, apologies.
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 27, 2010 8:41 PM
EDC, your apology is noted.
I shall heroically refrain from addressing your religiosity, and just note that most of us here are more than familiar with the Babble and its contents.
Here's something to think about: you've stated that story-Jesus "spoke out against the judgmental religious"; have you failed to note the many, many places where story-Jesus is (um, how to put this delicately) being religiously judgemental? ;)
Posted by: God
|
July 28, 2010 3:49 AM
Being a fan of anyone or anything but Me is a heinous sin.