On phobia vs scepticism

John Cleese has issued a few tweets over recent weeks suggesting that a better word for what is often called Islamophobia should be called Islamosceptic. 

Dr Cleese has had a few bad takes in his time but a look at his feed shows he’s mostly on the right side. I can respect anyone whose opinion on any given subject isn’t instantly predictable based on their other opinions, and I wish to take him up on his point in the intellectual spirit it was offered in. 

I accept Dr Cleese’s definition of a phobia as an “irrational over-reaction, as with spiders.”

Here’s the problem:

We are not always rational about what makes something rational or irrational.

I have two major phobias – heights, and large bodies of water.

I have argued (albeit facetiously) that being afraid of falling to my doom from a great height or drowning in the ocean are perfectly rational fears.

However, history has shown us that so long as the risks are respected and proper safety procedures followed, there is no rational reason to be afraid of either. That doesn’t stop my balls from shrinking up towards my intestines any time I’m in such a situation – or even when I see such a situation on television. In fact, media induced trauma has a lot to do with what we’re talking about and we’ll get to that a little later.

Perhaps I should call myself an acrosceptic.

I’m none too fond of spiders either, but where-ever possible I live and let live.

So while John’s points about ‘phobia’ being an emotive term which implies irrationality, and scepticism being a indispensable part of scientific method are well taken, it doesn’t tell the whole story.

For example: there are people who disagree with the interpretation of scientific data on human induced climate change which is accepted by 97% of climate scientists.

While I may butt up against the appeal to authority fallacy here, this is not a rational position for anyone who is not a climate scientist to take. Yet those who adopt it get to call themselves “climate sceptics.”

To be a climate ‘sceptic’ today is not to hold a rational doubt in pursuit of the truth. This is shown in the way most of their arguments are non-scientific, from conspiracy theories to “it was cold where I live last week.”

None of this fits a valid definition of ‘sceptic.’ But it would be wrong to call them sciencephobes. They are not scared of science per se. They happily accept air travel, pain killers, plastics, the internet. Some even accept vaccines.

No, they only fear science when the science is inconvenient to them. Or not even to them, but to those they have been listening to. For, what is there to fear from mitigating climate change? Renewable energy sources? Cleaner air and water? New industries and employment opportunities?

To find a rational fear of reducing climate change, we have to look to who has the most to lose from it. That is, of course, those who profit the most from the fossil fuel industry. And it turns out, a lot of them own media companies too. Those who don’t directly own media companies make large contributions to those who do.

I’m not saying it’s only the fat cats who benefit from the fossil fuels industry. There are thousands, if not millions of oil rig workers and miners who will have to retrain and find other jobs if we do this properly. Just as there were thousands of workers in the photographic film industry whose jobs evaporated in a space of about five years. Unless you thought for five seconds about their plight before ditching your instamatic for a digicam and then an iPhone, I respectfully ask that you pipe down about job losses.

Now that we have discussed phobia vs scepticism on a less emotive example than religion, let’s return to whether we should be saying Islamophobe or Islamosceptic.

The problem with both terms is they treat Islam as a monolith, which is it not, any more than Christianity, conservatism, or Collingwood supporters.

To question the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad, and the tenets of the Quran is to be sceptical. It is not just part of scientific thinking but also theological thinking.

To fear for your safety because you saw someone on public transport in religious garb is irrational and can correctly be described as a phobia. The same goes for assuming a mosque is a terrorist hub for no other reason than that it is a mosque.

We all know (well, most of us do) that the antics of the Westboro Baptist Church (Hey! They call it a church!) is not broadly representative of Christianity, despite the disproportionate amount of media coverage they receive. To assume it is would be phobic, not sceptic. 

Dr Cleese makes the very valid point that Life of Brian is in no way Christophobic. But based on his own explanation, he would be right to take umbrage at the film being called Christosceptic too. As he says, it is not sceptical of Christianity, just certain types of Christians. 

Valid criticism of Westboro has nothing to with criticising Christianity. This much is obvious. What apparently isn’t so obvious is that criticism Islam as a whole is a long way from criticising how certain adherents practice particular facets of their faith.

It’s a pity that no one seems to be able to tell the difference.

 

How to fix I.C.E.

There are millions of people who want ICE abolished. There are millions of people who want ICE strengthened. It’s a common debate about all kinds of services.

The solution is very simple, and it’s something I have learned from 25 years of reading and engaging with US conservatives. 

Two words: 

User pays!

That’s always been the guiding principle of conservatism. Taxpayers should not have to fund public schools if they want to send their kids to private schools or home school. There shouldn’t be publically funded libraries when there are people who don’t believe in reading. There should not be publically funded media when people don’t want to hear it. 

And I don’t even need to mention health care. America has the best health care in the world, doesn’t it? Doesn’t it?

This principle applies no matter how many Washington elites try to tell you it’s “necessary.”

Also, was it not Ronald Reagan who said the most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”?

Well, you’ve proved that. Government run Immigration and Customs Enforcement has resulted in people being hired who aren’t even physically or psychologically fit enough to be an overnight mall cop. 

What’s more, they’re being paid 5-figure bonuses before they’ve even done a day’s work! What kind of socialism is that? It’s Business 101, people! Where is the Department of Government Efficiency now?

The solution is simple, and it’s to follow the conservative solution for everything:
PRIVATISE I.C.E!

We all know that the private sector always gives a better service for a lower price, right? Right?

So, let them! Allow the free market to decide as it does best! Let the people choose their own ICE agents.

Now I’m not saying it will come cheap. A simple mid-morning raid on a restaurant could still run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not everyone who needs it can afford that. 

For those who can’t afford to pay out of pocket, they can take out Immigration Insurance. If they require a raid, they can claim it on their insurance plan. After that, a very smart and community spirited assessor will look at the daylight murder you requested and decide if 

a)    The procedure is covered under your policy
b)    The operation was warranted
c)    The company will pay for it

If the answer to all three questions is ‘yes’ then happy days!

If the answer to any of those questions is ‘no’ then you’ll have your life destroyed. But I’m sure we can all agree that this would only happen to people trying to game the system through over servicing, right? 

You know it makes sense. 

Or, as one of your fallen heroes liked to say, prove me wrong.

Diplomatic language is not folly, it’s a necessary façade

Paul Daley wrote a piece in The Guardian yesterday called The dangerous folly of Australia’s come-what-may sycophancy towards Trump is on full display. In it, he argues that America and its position has changed, and Australia is foolish to continue to act as unquestioning allies.

Everything said in the piece is true and all the points made are valid ones.

Here’s a counterpoint though:

There is nothing to be gained for Australia from hairy-chested opposition to the new US administration. Not in public, anyway.

Most people who work with Trump know full well he is a psychopath. The only difference is whether they think it’s a good thing to be used to their advantage (possibly because they’re psychopaths too), or a bad thing to be managed since the highest court in the country has ruled the president untouchable.

Falling into the latter category was Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley. Observing Trump’s mental breakdown following his 2020 election loss, Gen. Milley called a secret meeting of officials in charge of the National Military Command Centre and instructed them not to take orders from anyone unless he was involved.

He also made contact with the Chinese military to assure them there would be not be any attack, no matter what rhetoric they may hear.

This is what patriotism looks like.

While Elon Musk and his teenage army of bad coders are conducting an ideological purge of all US government mechanisms on Trump’s behalf, it is reasonable to expect there are still a few General Milleys around.

In the meantime, it does not advance Australia’s interests to antagonise a man and an administration who above all want to be admired and feared. Especially when between them, they probably couldn’t name Australia’s prime minister or find Australia on a map. Trump clearly has NFI what AUKUS is.

Much as I despise the “small target” strategy which Labor has employed for the last 30 years on every level with varying degrees of failure, dealing with Trump is one time where it’s appropriate.

Everyone in the Australian government knows Trump is an idiot and they all know we know it too. Saying so out loud in an official capacity, while being a commendable statement of principle, would not achieve anything positive for anyone.

Diplomacy with the Trump administration is all about letting the baby have his bottle. It’s not about appeasing a tyrant, which Trump undoubtedly is. It’s about leveraging the mentality of a man who will agree with whoever he last spoke to as long as they tell him how big and strong he is, to our advantage.

Maintaining normal diplomatic language towards the US government is no less a dangerous folly than tubthumping denouncement which would only achieve a pyrrhic victory at best. International diplomacy is about saying what you need to get what you want while knowing where you stand. 

Why the duct-taped banana is a true work of art

Oscar Wilde said all art is quite useless. Many disagree but at a level of human necessity, he was correct. You can’t eat art. You can’t build your house out of it. You can’t burn it for fuel (at least not for long, anyway). So it’s kind of like gold in that sense. Its only value is the value we place on it.

Last week, the value of US$6million was placed on a work of art consisting of a banana-duct taped to a wall. (Okay, maybe you can eat art).

What makes this a true work of art in late 2024 is that it is quite simply stupid. It’s a stupid price for a stupid work. We can all agree on this. It’s simply stupid.

One of the cures for ethylene glycol (or antifreeze) poisoning is to get the patient drunk and keep them drunk. Stay with me here; I’m going to make a connection.

Ethylene glycol on its own will not kill you. The problem is the liver will convert it into chemicals which will kill you.

However, the liver also prioritises the chemicals it processes. Ethanol, or drinking alcohol, is a much simpler chemical than ethylene glycol and the liver processes the simpler toxins first. By getting the patient medically drunk on ethanol, the liver spends all its time processing the ethanol, and the ethylene glycol passes through the body unprocessed. If successful, the patient lives do to another stupid thing another day.

I wish to present the theory that the liver is not the only organ which processes the simpler things first.

We live in a world full of relentless, toxic stupidity.

We see Israel bombing hospitals and murdering children in the name of self defence and there are people willing to accept this logic even when the stated objective is one that can only be described as genocide.

At the same time, it’s somehow controversial that Ukraine would defend itself against a hostile invasion by a notionally far more powerful nation. In the world I grew up in, powerful countries consuming smaller ones was considered bad. Then again, taking the wider view of history, maybe this value was just a 20^th century blip, but I’m holding onto it.

Meanwhile, America has elected a carnival clown as its leader for a second time. And said clown wants to put the guy who became a multi-billionaire from government contracts in charge of cutting government waste and a science denier in charge of the country’s health.

Each of the three paragraphs above contain so many complex layers of unfathomable stupid as to leave the normal, compassionate human brain beachballing.

It’s much easier to process the stupidity of an artist duct-taping a banana to a wall and getting someone else to pay $6million for it.

I’m sure there are people willing to justify the rationality of this, but they are far fewer and further between than those willing to accept the stupidity of Israel, Russia and Trump.

That makes it easier for us all to process too. In a world where even objective reality is somehow up for debate, we can comfort ourselves that we can all at least agree that paying a stupid sum for a stupid banana taped to a stupid wall is stupid.

For sure, it’s a sad indictment of us all on many levels, but this is a piece of stupid we can all process without killing ourselves and for a moment, the really toxic stupid does us a little less harm.

And that is art.

 

The role of White Woman Tears in the Olympic boxing controversy

I’m not sure if this has already been mentioned but I think a significant factor in the Olympic boxing kerfuffle is White Woman Tears.

Imane Khelif was born with a vagina. According to TERFs and other basic dickheads, this is the one and only criterion by which someone can be considered a woman. So what’s the problem?

Of course she punched her opponent in the head. That’s LITERALLY the ENTIRE POINT of the event. If this disturbs you, and fair enough, then your issue is with the entire sport of boxing and I would probably agree with you there.

And of course Angela Carini cried when she was defeated so comprehensively. Be honest, that’s all part of the reason you watch, isn’t it? The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, right?

But upon seeing the expression of emotion by someone who conforms more than her opponent to western and media stereotypes of how a woman should look, a lot of people are assuming she was treated unfairly.

Does Imane Khelif have an unfair advantage because of her relatively unusual genetic makeup? Of course she friggin’ does! Have you only just figured out how sport works? If every competitor were perfectly matched, every game would be a tie, every race would be a dead heat, every shot would hit the target perfectly. That is not how it works, and yet the people claiming unfairness in this event are the same people who deride “snowflakes” for wanting a “participation trophy.”

Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. If Imane Khelif was born great, good for her. If the greatness she was born with outweights the greatness Angela Carini achieved, that’s just the way it goes in the pursuit of faster, higher, stronger.