Various idiocies from around the world
Recently, I have written a few post based on different news items from the world of sports. Since I found this format entertaining (from a writer’s point of view) and different from my usual styles and topics, I am giving it a go with some more general news items that I encountered the last few days. The common thread is a more abstract one of stupidity, irrationality, etc., and thus the items are less connected this time around.
Note: Much of the international news I encounter come from sources that are not in English or that provide no “permalinks”. I have tried to find corresponding English sources suitable for linking. Beware that there may be some differences in the content from my original sources.
- A breastfeeding protest in Argentine: Apparently, the police had, very laudably, removed a women from a public place for breastfeeding. This has resulted in a mass protest, with statements made like:
“My breasts, my rights; I’m not interested in your opinion,” (sign)
“This is great because it sheds light on a problem. And police need to be on the public’s side and not work against them” (Adolfo Perez Esquivel; Nobel Peace Prize winner)
I am sorry, but this is utterly idiotic, selfish, and irrational:
This type of bodily function belongs to those better kept in private out of consideration for others. I do not pick my nose in public either. (Even though “My nose, my rights” could just as easily and with just as much or little justification be applied, showing the uselessness of cheap rhetorical statements in lieu of arguments.) Breastfeeding is just as disgusting as nose picking (arguably more so, because the duration is considerably longer) and if the police should be on the public side, then they should indeed prevent it. Now, unlikely nose-picking, there may be situations where breastfeeding can be justified on an emergency basis, to protect the health of a child; however, these will be few and far between. There will almost always be somewhere private* to go, even when originally in public. It is only very rarely a choice between breastfeeding and not breastfeeding, but one of breastfeeding where one currently is and taking a brief walk to breastfeed in private, or to wait a little while and do it at home, or to plan better and avoid the situation in the first place. The truth is simply this: These women egoistically prioritize their own comfort over the interests of the rest of the world. (The “I’m not interested in your opinion” is telling.) Their moral outrage is utterly misplaced.
*Which I here take to include public bathrooms and other areas that are potentially still public in the strict sense of the phrase, but are either more shielded than “public public” places or by their nature are more open to intimate bodily functions.
In contrast, someone who urinates in public can become a registered “sex offender”, with the massive disadvantages that follow, in many U.S. states. (Cf. e.g. http://www.businessinsider.com/surprising-things-that-could-make-you-a-sex-offender-2013-10. The U.S. is a country of insane laws.)
- The NBA all-star game is being rescheduled over bathroom laws: The game should have taken place in North Carolina, which apparently has a law requiring that the men’s or lady’s room is chosen based on the chooser’s sex at birth. NBA has a hissy fit over allegedly illicit discrimination and now moves the game elsewhere—political correctness at an irrationality high.
There are at least three things wrong here:
Firstly, transgendered people pose a new problem where we do not yet have norms and there often cannot be a solution found that satisfies everyone. The perspective that a certain individual feels like an X, while being a Y by birth, and through feeling like an X should be allowed to behave like an X (even without an operation), has some legitimacy. It is, however, not the only perspective. Others might with equal legitimacy feel that they do not want to be confronted with a Y-by-birth in the bathroom. Or what about the risk that someone sneaks in to the wrong bathroom under the mere pretext of being transgender? Yet other perspectives exist. Why should the perspective of one be more valuable than the other*? Either we have to resign ourselves to the fact that cramming more than two categories of gender or sex into two categories of bathrooms will require that some party remains dissatisfied or we have to change the categorization of bathrooms. (The most reasonably manner would likely be to use unisex bathrooms throughout, but then the outrage from those currently outraged will likely be twice as hard and blowing in the other direction…)
*Given that these perspectives are based in rational and irrational criteria, objective and subjective harm to similar degrees. Indeed, in as far as an objective harm is present, the “by birth” faction probably has a stronger claim. (Although it might be different if we look at “post-ops” or other transsexuals.)
Secondly, the issue is not one of sufficient importance that such actions are proportional and reasonable, not even if viewed symbolically*. This especially considering that the law-makers are merely elected by the people—they do not constitute the people or a consensus opinion of the people. Indeed, it is quite possible that many of those who will be “punished” are against the law… What about the hot-dog salesman or hotel owner who loses a business opportunity? What about the hardcore fans who now have to travel so much longer? In contrast, the law-makers will be largely unaffected and might even have a possibility to spin this to their advantage comes election time…
*In contrast, the far more important, pervasive, and illegitimate racial segregation applied in South-Africa a few decades ago made a far stronger case for similar boycotts (but see below)—as the situation in North-Carolina yet a few decades earlier might or might not have. (I am not certain what exact state had what exact rules at what point in time.)
Thirdly, sports* should be kept apart from politics to the degree possible and reasonable. To use it as a cheap bat against or for a certain pet issue is not acceptable, especially seeing that many of those involved, including athletes and fans, might have different opinions. (Just as the population does not necessarily agree with the law-makers.) To presume to speak for or moralize on behalf of these is inexcusable. This is particular disturbing as there is a strong tendency to attack athletes with the “wrong” opinion through various sanctions. There are situations when even a sports organization might need to take a political, moral, whatnot, stance, but this is most certainly not one of them.
*In contrast, movements, organizations, and whatnots, that have an inherently political, ideological, moral, …, nature are in a different position.
- According to http://www.ard-text.de, German television will continue its policy of not re-airing episodes of the popular series “Derrick”. (I have no current English source, but there are older on the same topic.) The reason: The lead actor, Horst Tappert, used to be a member of SS.
Again an irrational decision: His background does not affect the quality of the show, those punished are the audience (cut of your nose to spite your face…; Tappert himself is dead), and by no reasonably means can a re-airing be seen e.g. as support of Nazi values. But above all: Tappert (going by e.g. his entry in the German Wikipedia ) entered SS in 1943 and was only 21 at the end of the (European) war. “Derrick” ran from 1974–1998… During an Internet search, I found no indication that (specifically) Tappert had committed war crimes or otherwise acted in an illicit manner compared to, say, the average U.S. soldier. (He might still have, especially considering his company, but it is up to the accusers to prove guilt.) Now, if Tappert had been the commander of an extermination camp, I could possibly see a point. He was not: He was a very young man—who, for all we know, might have been pressured into entering or might simply have had naive ideas, influenced by the immense Nazi propaganda-machine*, that he had shed decades before “Derrick”.
*Remember that he must have been around nine years of age when the Nazis rose to power, and severely disadvantaged to those already of an adult age—let alone those who look back at events taking place decades before they born…
- About two weeks ago, I bought a new travel bag. As I paid, the cashier told me that the key to (the otherwise combination) lock was in the possession of “just” the TSA—and I immediately had images flashing through my head of keys leaking out, the lock being practically useless, and myself abstaining from the buy. (A moment later, I realized that even without such key leaks, well, a flimsy three-digit combination-lock on a bag with textile walls will not be much of an obstacle to a thief anyway.)
Today, I learned of exactly this type of key leak—and not the first leak to take place either. “Just” the TSA, my ass!
This system is idiotic in its own right, because such problems are obvious, bordering on the unavoidable. No thinking and informed individual who actually cares about security could consider it anything but idiotic. More likely, it is implemented for the convenience of the TSA and with nothing more than imaginary security* ever intended for the travelers. However, it does not end here: This is exactly the type of problem** that would arise if some politicians had their way with encryption and other digital security measures. Back-doors will eventually leak out or be discovered and be used by criminals. Ditto digital master-keys. Ditto whatnot. Well, there are two differences: A criminal with a TSA master-key still needs to get hold of the individual bag and needs to open it individually; a criminal with a digital master-key can have a program automatically attack targets all around the world, from the distance. A criminal without a TSA master-key could still get into the bag comparatively easily; a criminal without a digital master-key typically cannot get in at all. In other words: The problem would be far, far worse…
*More generally, I am not a fan of the way airport security is implemented. The direct and indirect cost, especially for the passengers, especially in time, is immense. Hi-jackings are avoided through very different means, and the increase in security with regard to attempts to smuggle bombs on-board appears to be limited—and could definitely be made in a more rationalized manner.
**Not to mention the independent problem of abuse through the government, but that is another issue.
As a brief post-script to the “Olympic” posts: I really should have dealt with the situation around Russia and the possible blanket ban at some point. While I am not necessarily saying that a ban is bad thing (it is a complicated issue), there are several troubling aspects relevant to the previous posts, including that the presumption of innocence is removed (that tests have not taken place or not been reported accurately by some Russian organization or other does not mean that they would have come back respectively were positive), that individuals are punished for the actions of other individuals and/or various organizations (collective punishment), and that the ban is arbitrary in terms of different sports (according to the last I heard, earlier today, the IOC leaves the decision to the individual sports organizations, which means that Russian athletes from sport A will not go, whereas those from sport B will.) The idea of letting Russian athletes compete, but not for Russia, could incidentally have been a good one, eventually leading to a participation based on individual effort, not on country of origin. (See my previous posts for problems resulting from the current fixation on countries over athletes.)