Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

While I agree with his take on it, I don't think it is a revolutionary or new perspective. It is precisely the tack taken by so many with the libertanarchocapitalistinfoiler crowd.

Why does it always have to be new? Why can't it just be a clear presentation of the issue?

 

[Dak]

Because that's been done to death for the last decade. I guess though if it is reaching a new audience or one in denial that is a benefit. It does erk me though that so often that the "tinfoilly" goes from "crazy" to "duh everyone knows that" overnight, with no reflection whatsoever. The whole surveillance state issue is just another example.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's clearly more to it than that. The attitude of his post isn't simple aversion, but skeptical aversion. Watts is asking "Why the fuck doesn't this freak other people out?"

I, for one, do not experience the same anxiety that Watts does over the surveillance state, so I find his inquisitive attitude refreshing. He isn't simply saying those who aren't concerned are dumb; he's asking why they aren't and giving some plausible reasons.

The issue isn't "the surveillance state" but "the attitude toward the surveillance state."

He even addresses exactly what you just said:

You all know this as well as I do, of course. I’m only about the millionth blogger to whinge about these things. So why do I feel like a voice in the wilderness when I wonder: why aren’t we retreating from the cloud, exactly? What’s so absurd about storing your life on a USB key or a hard drive, rather than handing it over to some amorphous webcorp that whispers sweet nothings about safe secrets and unbreakable encryption into your ear, only to roll over and surrender your most private details the first time some dead-eyed spook in a trench coat comes calling?

 

[Dak]

Well there is definitely a generational or cohort differential, which is in large part not merely due to the ubiquity of the new technology but also to the shift over time in the indoctrination at the K-12 level. However, the older cohorts aren't really so much more distrustful than younger generations as they are suffering from the standard age-related learning handicaps in adopting new tech.

The relatively passive acceptance of the digital surveillance state is, I believe, for the same reason tax withholdings worked so well in the place of the tax collector banging on your door. Out of sight, out of mind.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, Watts isn't out of touch with technology; he's just highly critical of its application(s).

In other news, this is a lengthy explication (and only one part of it!) of why posthumanism and/or inhumanism is not an abandonment of the human but rather, as Negarastani argues, "is born out of a diligent commitment to the project of enlightened humanism."

http://www.e-flux.com/journal/the-labor-of-the-inhuman-part-i-human/

(taken from the first section, The Labor of the Inhuman, Part I: Human)

Inhumanism stands in concrete opposition to any paradigm that seeks to degrade humanity either in the face of its finitude or against the backdrop of the great outdoors. Its labor partly consists in decanting the significance of human from any predetermined meaning or particular import set by theology—thereby extricating human significance from human veneration fabricated as a result of assigning significance to varieties of theological jurisdiction (God, ineffable genercity, foundationalist axiom, and so forth).

...

The force of inhumanism operates as a retroactive deterrence against antihumanism by understanding humanity historically—in the broadest physico-biological and socioeconomical sense of history—as an indispensable runway toward itself.

(and more from The Labor of the Inhuman, Part II: The Inhuman):

A political endeavor aligned with antihumanism cannot forestall its descent into a grotesque form of activism. But any sociopolitical project that pledges its allegiance to conservative humanism—whether through a quasi-instrumentalist and preservationist account of reason (such as Habermasian rationality) or a theologically charged meaning of human—enforces the tyranny of here and now under the aegis of a foundational past or a root.

Antihumanism and conservative humanism represent two pathologies of history frequently appearing under the rubrics of conservation and progression—one an account of the present that must preserve the traits of the past, and the other an account of the present that must approach the future while remaining anchored in the past. But the catastrophe of revision erases them from the future by modifying the link between the past and the present.

 

[Dak]

Referring back to the issue of private business owners discriminating, how about in this case:

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm surprised you don't see the discrepancy there.

Let me illustrate with another example to complement this one: "We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works."

The problem here is that the person herself is not the one being judged/discriminated against. What is at issue is the gun itself, not the operator.

Likewise, the store owner is prohibiting the presence of an object, not a specific type of person.

 

[Dak]

There really isn't a practical, or concrete difference. If I believe in carrying a gun, but don't carry, there isn't grounds for me to be barred from that establishment(in the eyes of the owner). If I were a lesbian, but wasn't asking for a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding, or for halal food or whatever/ otherwise concretely demonstrating my beliefs, there would be no grounds for owners in other cases to discriminate. Barring someone from exercising their 2nd amendment right and CCW permit is no less bigoted than barring omeone exercising their civil or "human rights". Let us be consistent. If it is wrong to ban a woman for having a head covering or girlfriend, why isn't it wrong to ban her for having a gun?

The person is clearly being discriminated against btw. Language such as "loser" and "douchebag" make that clear.

 

[Einherjar86]

There really isn't a practical, or concrete difference. If I believe in carrying a gun, but don't carry, there isn't grounds for me to be barred from that establishment(in the eyes of the owner). If I were a lesbian, but wasn't asking for a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding, or for halal food or whatever/ otherwise concretely demonstrating my beliefs, there would be no grounds for owners in other cases to discriminate. Barring someone from exercising their 2nd amendment right and CCW permit is no less bigoted than barring omeone exercising their civil or "human rights". Let us be consistent. If it is wrong to ban a woman for having a head covering or girlfriend, why isn't it wrong to ban her for having a gun?

The person is clearly being discriminated against btw. Language such as "loser" and "douchebag" make that clear.

There is a practical, concrete, cultural difference.

The restaurant owner isn't barring gun owners from her establishment; she is banning guns.

This is different than banning homosexuals. You can't say: "Well, you can come in; but leave your homosexuality at the door." A gun is not a component of cultural identity in the same way that homosexuality is, or that a burka is.

They're very different things.

 

[Dak]

There is a practical, concrete, cultural difference.

The restaurant owner isn't barring gun owners from her establishment; she is banning guns.

Ok. So let's change the focus:

"No Burkas allowed" If you are such a pathetic human being so as to cover up your face, you are obviously up to no good and a loser. I do not want your business, douchebag"

Not a ban on Muslims, merely on wearing a Burka.

This is different than banning homosexuals. You can't say: "Well, you can come in; but leave your homosexuality at the door."

The women who were refused a lesbian wedding cake weren't refused on the basis of their sexual preference, but on the specific service request. Asking to be served while carrying is a specific service request, and the refusal isn't technically a refusal based on pro-carry preference. Pro-carrying preferences are no more "droppable" than sexual preference, and no more/less private.

A gun is not a component of cultural identity

I beg to differ. Guns get fetishized just like any other object, whether Burkas or mesh tank tops or studded leather jackets.

 

[Einherjar86]

Before I even pursue this argument further, let me clarify: you are trying to get out of me a law of universal applicability. I don't think there is one. I do think there is a way to successfully and conveniently come to an agreement about different kinds of objects. I think this is what politics is for. You'll complain that the group granted the power to make the decisions don't deserve that power. Same old song and dance. I don't agree with you. And furthermore, I do not see this as a discrimination against gun owners because it targets the possession of an object whose ownership derives from the belief that its acquisition is a free choice. It meets the object and its owner on their own historico-cultural ground.

Now, on to specifics:

Ok. So let's change the focus:

"No Burkas allowed" If you are such a pathetic human being so as to cover up your face, you are obviously up to no good and a loser. I do not want your business, douchebag"

Not a ban on Muslims, merely on wearing a Burka.

A burka isn't a gun. It possesses a religio-cultural significance. A gun is an entirely different object.

The women who were refused a lesbian wedding cake weren't refused on the basis of their sexual preference, but on the specific service request. Asking to be served while carrying is a specific service request, and the refusal isn't technically a refusal based on pro-carry preference. Pro-carrying preferences are no more "droppable" than sexual preference, and no more/less private.

Pro-carrying preferences are not the same as sexual preferences. Equating them is absurd. One is a constitutive component of behavior. The other is (ideally...) nothing more than a choice.

Furthermore, they were denied a service based on their sexual preference. Gun owners aren't being denied service because of their preference to own a firearm.

I beg to differ. Guns get fetishized just like any other object, whether Burkas or mesh tank tops or studded leather jackets.

Fetishization does not grant the object the same cultural heritage or symbolic status as a burka. The history and context of both are entirely different.

And don't just toss around terms like "fetishization" because you think it makes you sound like you're in on the argument.

 

[Dak]

Before I even pursue this argument further, let me clarify: you are trying to get out of me a law of universal applicability. I don't think there is one. I do think there is a way to successfully and conveniently come to an agreement about different kinds of objects. I think this is what politics is for. You'll complain that the group granted the power to make the decisions don't deserve that power. Same old song and dance. I don't agree with you. And furthermore, I do not see this as a discrimination against gun owners because it targets the possession of an object whose ownership derives from the belief that its acquisition is a free choice. It meets the object and its owner on their own historico-cultural ground.

Don't do what so many others do, which is make this about anarchy. This isn't. However, this is about being consistent. If you want to refer to consistency as "universalizing" that is fine, but without some measure of consistency there is no basis for any sort of logic.

A burka isn't a gun. It possesses a religio-cultural significance. A gun is an entirely different object.

Yes they are different objects. But they do have equivocal cultural significance. In fact, if we must make a distinction between significance, there is a strong argument for the superior significance of the gun over the burka.

Pro-carrying preferences are not the same as sexual preferences. Equating them is absurd. One is a constitutive component of behavior. The other is (ideally...) nothing more than a choice.

Well carrying a gun, whether concealed or open, is obviously a choice. It's a choice of acting on a preference. Just like the choice of acting on a sexual preference. Equating them is not absurd. I'm not saying sexual preference is a choice, merely the ways one acts on it. Just like gun preference isn't a "choice", but the way one acts is. This comparison is completely valid. Preference to preference, act to act.

Furthermore, they were denied a service based on their sexual preference. Gun owners aren't being denied service because of their preference to own a firearm.

Incorrect. Theoretically lesbians could order non sexual-preference-action related service. Like birthday/studio pictures. Gun owners can presumably proceed with any manner of business at the establishment with that sign, as long as they don't conceal carry (never mind how the owner would know if someone is actually concealing a weapon, if properly concealed).

In both cases, the refusal isn't based on preference but on actions.

Fetishization does not grant the object the same cultural heritage or symbolic status as a burka. The history and context of both are entirely different.

And don't just toss around terms like "fetishization" because you think it makes you sound like you're in on the argument.

Well sure the history and context of both are different. That doesn't mean they don't hold equal status, or that the burka might not even hold a lower heritage or status symbol.

I think I am using fetishization quite accurately here, and concurrent with your own estimations. You have often referred to guns as heavily fetishized.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't understand you. It is not the possibility of acting on sexual preference that a restaurant owner who denies service to gays is concerned with; it has to do with the fact that they are homosexual. In contrast, the restaurant owner who bans guns is not banning those who own guns. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are gun owners. What is difficult about this? If you're suggesting an element of choice in homosexuality, then we have another issue we need to discuss.

And I'm not trying to make it about anarchy either. I'm saying that you are trying to force a universal law of applicability, in a logical sense. I'm begging you to pull your brain away from logic for a moment and think critically (there's a difference) about how people interact in a given socio-cultural context. We can treat burkas and guns different, and there is a significant precedent for doing so. Furthermore, we can definitely treat guns and homosexuality differently.

 

[Dak]

I don't understand you. It is not the possibility of acting on sexual preference that a restaurant owner who denies service to gays is concerned with; it has to do with the fact that they are homosexual. In contrast, the restaurant owner who bans guns is not banning those who own guns. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are gun owners. What is difficult about this? If you're suggesting an element of choice in homosexuality, then we have another issue we need to discuss.

I was referring to specific recent events. In two cases, we had a refusal of service at/for a wedding of same-sex pairs. Their total business was not refused.

In New Mexico, a photographer was sued amid objections over a gay couple wanting wedding pictures taken. In Oregon, a baker who refused to do a gay couple's wedding cake faced a complaint.

These are action based refusals, not preference/infirmity based (in contrast with the hick from OK). I specifically said that I was not suggesting that homosexuality was a choice, but certain actions stemming from it are, just like any other preference/belief/etc. I am a heterosexual. It doesn't mean I would certainly get married, or certainly want pictures/cake at that wedding, etc. I believe in the right of the individual to self protection/preservation. That doesn't mean I must or would carry a weapon on me at all times.

And I'm not trying to make it about anarchy either. I'm saying that you are trying to force a universal law of applicability, in a logical sense. I'm begging you to pull your brain away from logic for a moment and think critically (there's a difference) about how people interact in a given socio-cultural context. We can treat burkas and guns different, and there is a significant precedent for doing so. Furthermore, we can definitely treat guns and homosexuality differently.

Of course we can treat guns and homosexuality differently. They are so different that it occurs by definition. Homosexuality is not an object. A gun is. A burka is. But if we must compare "apples to apples", then we must look actions with actions, preferences/inclinations/beliefs with their kind, and objects with objects. But currently, an atmosphere that has no problem with the adhom laden sign aimed at one class of people, but would have a problem with the same sign aimed at another class, is not approaching or able to be defended by anything approaching critical thought. It's purely biased rationalization. "I like burkas cause Muhammad. I don't like gays cause Muhammad". "I don't like guns cause only losers carry guns. I like gays cause they they are gay". No critical thought present.

My own belief is in the right of the business owner to refuse service to whoever for whatever ridiculous reason (including the one who doesn't want CCW users). All I am saying is that we need to stop picking and choosing acceptable bigotry while denouncing bigotry. The hypocrisy needs to end.

 

[Einherjar86]

These are action based refusals, not preference/infirmity based (in contrast with the hick from OK).

I'm sorry, but I still see a discrepancy here on your part.

Let's replace the respective refusals (i.e. of wedding photos and a cake) with the same objection that the above restaurant owner has to guns.

The wedding photographer or baker can refuse to cater to someone who is actively carrying a firearm; but this can be remedied by leaving the firearm at home. Likewise, the restaurant refusal is not an objection to a person but to an object of possession.

The refusal of service to homosexuals does not derive from an objection to their actions, but to their identity/essence/nature/etc. The photographer might say: "I object to them getting wedding photos taken"; but this is because the photographer objects to their homosexuality in the first place.

Acting upon homosexuality is not the same as acting upon possession of a firearm because homosexuality exhibits itself in every action of the individual; it is an inseparable part of them! A gun, much to the contrary, can be isolated and removed from the situation without affecting the owner's overall behavior or persona (although she might complain that she had to leave her gun at home). There is a world of difference between the capacity for action in the order of possessing a firearm, and the capacity for action in the order of being homosexual. The latter cannot be separated from the actions of the individual. I don't even see how you could entertain that notion.

 

[Dak]

I'm sorry, but I still see a discrepancy here on your part.

Let's replace the respective refusals (i.e. of wedding photos and a cake) with the same objection that the above restaurant owner has to guns.

The wedding photographer or baker can refuse to cater to someone who is actively carrying a firearm; but this can be remedied by leaving the firearm at home. Likewise, the restaurant refusal is not an objection to a person but to an object of possession.

Just like leaving the burka at home, or not getting married to someone of the same sex. Obviously not pleasant for the respective person, but neither is discrimination based on a choice to carry.

The refusal of service to homosexuals does not derive from an objection to their actions, but to their identity/essence/nature/etc. The photographer might say: "I object to them getting wedding photos taken"; but this is because the photographer objects to their homosexuality in the first place.

Because calling someone a loser and a douchebag doesn't indicate any objection to their gun-related beliefs in the first place?

Acting upon homosexuality is not the same as acting upon possession of a firearm because homosexuality exhibits itself in every action of the individual; it is an inseparable part of them! A gun, much to the contrary, can be isolated and removed from the situation without affecting the owner's overall behavior or persona (although she might complain that she had to leave her gun at home). There is a world of difference between the capacity for action in the order of possessing a firearm, and the capacity for action in the order of being homosexual. The latter cannot be separated from the actions of the individual. I don't even see how you could entertain that notion.

Homosexuality does not exhibit itself in every action, unless one is going for "flamboyant". Certainly not necessary or universal. The gun itself is an object, carrying/wearing is the action, just like with a burka. If there is any discrepancy, we could maybe see that the girlfriend/fiance of the lesbian(or boyfriend/fiance of the gay guy) should not be similarly "objectified", but actions with a subject (rather than an object) can still be treated as an "action". Such as weddings, or requiring cakes or pictures for them. From specific bakers and photographers.

Personally, I don't understand a person wanting to force association/business with someone who doesn't want to associate/do business. It's somewhere between stalking and rape. Even if we can agree that one side is being bigoted, the other side is has some equally serious problems of a different nature.

 

[Dak]

On an unrelated note, and in the spirit of the old Iran jpg:

 

[Einherjar86]

Just like leaving the burka at home, or not getting married to someone of the same sex. Obviously not pleasant for the respective person, but neither is discrimination based on a choice to carry.

The personal sexuality of individuals is one with their immediate sense of self that permeates all possible actions they can undertake. This immediacy precedes any and all cultural behavior; or, I should say, it achieves the influence of an essential character trait. Ownership of a gun does not, since the manufacture of guns only ever follows human cultural organization. Homosexuality cannot be anything except part of the immediate narrative of a human character; a gun is always an addition to such character.

Homosexuality does not exhibit itself in every action, unless one is going for "flamboyant".

Get a fucking clue Dak. This is the most homophobic thing I've ever seen you write.

 

[Dak]

The personal sexuality of individuals is one with their immediate sense of self that permeates all possible actions they can undertake. This immediacy precedes any and all cultural behavior; or, I should say, it achieves the influence of an essential character trait. Ownership of a gun does not, since the manufacture of guns only ever follows human cultural organization. Homosexuality cannot be anything except part of the immediate narrative of a human character; a gun is always an addition to such character.

The sociopoliticultural beliefs is what parallels homosexuality. Not the gun. I thought I was being clear on that. Furthermore, sexuality is not some sort of rigid dichotomous structure but a fluid state on a continuum, and can only express itself beyond reproductive instincts via culturally conditioned mechanisms. Any material object or mode of action one takes to demonstrate sexually is always already informed by the culture.

Get a fucking clue Dak. This is the most homophobic thing I've ever seen you write.

I don't see anything homophobic about it. Where is the fear? The hostility? There are a variety of ways hetero/homo/bi/a-/etc sexuals communicate their sexuality. The "macho" redneck with the lifted dually on mudders with straight pipes, wearing a BIG DAWGS shirt and cowboy boots, is displaying a different sort of "flamboyancy" than the "gay pride parade" homosexual variety.

 

[Einherjar86]

You're not being clear on anything at the moment.

Homophobia need not be an explicit fear of, or hostility toward, homosexuality. Rather, it's a misunderstanding of how homosexuality operates; this is what you're guilty of. Just as racism need not be an open hostility toward those of other ethnicities; it can simply manifest in how you address the issue.

That homosexuality can somehow be checked, or controlled; that it's something that should be maintained by those who "possess" it, and thus uncontrolled homosexuality clearly must manifest in "flamboyance." This is just an error in understanding what homosexuality is.