Correcting the errors of government

I am generally supportive of a lot of government activity. I’m glad it is involved in education and roads. Privatized versions of these things would lead to the upper class being wildly more educated than others while also having better transportation access than everyone else (though I am open to someone explaining how a poor family would pay for 3 kids to go to a school 20 miles away when there is no road to their rural, commercially useless home). I am glad we have police and fire forces. I think it’s a good thing that libraries have been so common for so long (though we need them less and less today – at least as physical entities). However, with all that said, there are sometimes I just hate the government. Today’s target: The Maine Bureau of Identification.

I work for a company which receives some of its funding through the state. As such, it is necessary for everyone there to cover their asses whenever anything comes up. Case in point, a criminal background check for me comes back with a Michael Hopkins attached to it. This guy, who lives a town or two over and has a similar birthday, was a punk when he was 15. He broke into a few cars and stole a couple of CD’s and a little loose change in his hometown, got caught, and now he has a record. (Why it shows up now and why a minor’s record is not sealed, I do not know.) Despite the different names and birthdays, I have been hounded to prove I am not Michael Hopkins. I mean, it makes sense, right? The onus is always on the person making the negative claim. (Stay tuned for my next post proving the non-existence of unicorns.)

So how does one go about proving he is not someone else? Why, finger prints, of course! Yes, that’s right. The only way the Maine Bureau of Identification (which is a thing I doubt should even exist) will confirm that you are who you say you are is by forcing you to give your finger prints over to them. Oh, and there’s a fee. Sure, it isn’t your fault someone cross-referenced something incorrectly. And sure, the evidence indicating you aren’t who you say you are is as good as the evidence that Jim Carrey and Drew Carey are the same person. And yes, yes, yes, the government has no rights to your finger prints. But come on! Let’s think rationally about this, innocent civilian: Go fuck yourself. Amirite?

Nationalism and stupidity

Here is the epitome of nationalism:

Here is what I just read on Facebook:

Why don’t you go tell every veteran that they are racist then.

Agreeing to die for you nation is pretty nationalistic. But then again, you apparently wouldn’t understand that. Nationalism can also be inclusive; not inherently divisive and racist. But then again, maybe you don’t understand that either

Go ask a soldier and get back to me. If you don’t like our nation then move out.

These were all responses to another person’s posts contending and explaining why nationalism is categorically racist. (He was using “racist” with some liberty, but that was never really even the issue.) It may be the least fruitful discussion I have ever seen on Facebook. It’s like the person conflating patriotism with nationalism has never even considered these arguments. I…I’m speechless. I have to let George Orwell take over:

A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.

Update: I usually make it a point to not publish names that come from non-public discussions, but whereas this person defriended the status maker over my comments, I don’t feel bad to say that I think Allyson McCreery is a twit who deserves zero respect.

Drive-by Facebooking

I’ve decided that I need a stock post for the act of drive-by Facebooking. It is an act which has become so common that it would be easier if I could just toss this link up whenever I see it. Let me explain.

I have recently written about people who don’t think Facebook is “real life”. They’re utterly wrong, of course. Simply because something happens on the Internet does not mean it is without impact. Aside from the fact that what we read on our friends’ walls absolutely does affect us one way or another (whether to a major or minor extent, positive or negative), we can also look to huge, historical events. Ever hear of the Arab Spring? Guess what the driving force behind that was. Oh, social media? Funny that. But there is another cast of people who have a distorted view of how Facebook and other online platforms work. These are the people who realize that Facebook is real, but they don’t want to treat it how they would treat any other situation. I call them drive-by Facebookers.

Imagine you’re sitting at a cafe or a bar talking with someone. For one reason or another, the discussion turns to something controversial. You and your friend find that the two of you are in disagreement. In fact, you’re position is so offensive to your friend that he gets up and walks away. But wait, wait, wait. He doesn’t merely storm off. That would be childish enough, of course, but there’s more. Instead of walking away in a puff with a final angry word, he says what he thinks, listens to your response, and then with a completely blank stare just walks away. No words that indicate an ending to the discussion. No expression. No overt sign of anger. It would go something like this:

You: I don’t like X for the reasons A, B, and C.

Friend: I really think your position is just awful! Here is the problem with A ____. And here is the problem with B ____. And here is the problem with C ____. I just can’t believe you think otherwise!

You: Here is another way of putting my argument ____.

Friend: *walks away, never to be seen again*

I’m not saying there needs to be a formal end to every discussion and debate. In fact, I think it’s a sign of oldness when someone says, “Good night!” or “I’ll be on tomorrow to continue this!” It’s the Internet, the place where time is irrelevant. There is no need to alert everyone to the fact that you’re leaving. The thing about which I am talking is when people storm in to make a point criticizing something, but when they are challenged back, they lack the common courtesy to respond. It’s an infantile act; it’s a way to declare a belief without needing to defend it in the least.

I can see some gray area in what I’m arguing. How many responses are needed in order to show appreciable courtesy? One? Two? A thousand? There is no clear line in the sand. Still, that does not justify the sort of thing about which I am talking. However blurred the lines get, there is no good reason for drive-by Facebooking. It’s nothing more than an excuse to show disagreement with a person without owning that disagreement. It’s like the frustration one might feel after getting cuffed on the back of the head and then having the attacker run off and face zero consequences. As a person who relishes debate, I see more than my fair share of people doing the equivalent to this online. I’ve grown tired of it. I think it’s childish; if people want to argue a point, then argue it as much as time will allow. Someone who is unwilling to do that should also be unwilling to comment in the first place.

So can we do away with this drive-by garbage, please? If you have an argument to make, make it. Just don’t run away when someone challengers what you’ve said. After all, no one likes a coward.

Opposing d-bags

Here is d-bag number 1:

She is fully stopped, waiting for the light to change. Of course, it would never change if it wasn’t for all the other traffic triggering the signals. (That intersection is based on motion first, time second.) It’s bad driving for sure, but not as bad as this King of D-bags:

This is also at a red light. And I ask why? Just…why? Is it really that hard to drive decently? At least the woman wasn’t blocking anything, but this guy is right in the way of anyone taking a left from the right side of the picture. It’s just terrible driving. I can’t say I would feel bad if he got clipped by the back end of a semi-truck.