Point/Counterpoint

I cam across this tweet from the comedian Jim Norton, which sets up an interesting point/counterpoint:


Norton’s piece has the eye-catching click-baity title “In Defense of Johns,” while Alter’s rebuttal is entitled “Dear Johns: Actually, You Should Be Ashamed to Buy Sex.”

I’m pretty much on record as supporting the decriminalization of sex work, for a variety of reasons*.

Part of Norton’s piece is a rather squicky pontification on men who frequent sex workers**, followed by an argument for decriminalization that I tend to find convincing: Continue reading

Share

Internet Civility 101

John Scalzi explains it all.

Share

When Cluelessness, Privilege, and Entitlement Meet, It’s Not Pretty

In case you can’t see the image in the above tweet, I have transcribed the entire statement at the end of this post. I just want to look at a few parts of the statement.

Our mission is to formally declare that we share the united belief that Officer Wilson’s actions on August 9th were warranted and justified, and he has our unwavering support. We believe that the evidence has and will continue to validate our position.

Everyone else, however, should wait until all the facts come out. Even if that takes forever. Continue reading

Share

This Seems to Miss the Point

I’ve never been to Burning Man, and I don’t intend to ever go. (One word: porta-potties.) That said, I can’t shake the feeling that certain Silicon Valley doucheonaires are not exactly getting the spirit of the event.

If you have never been to Burning Man, your perception is likely this: a white-hot desert filled with 50,000 stoned, half-naked hippies doing sun salutations while techno music thumps through the air.

A few years ago, this assumption would have been mostly correct. But now things are a little different. Over the last two years, Burning Man, which this year runs from Aug. 25 to Sept. 1, has been the annual getaway for a new crop of millionaire and billionaire technology moguls, many of whom are one-upping one another in a secret game of I-can-spend-more-money-than-you-can and, some say, ruining it for everyone else.

***

Before I explain just how ridiculous the spending habits of these baby billionaires have become, let’s go over the rules of Burning Man: You bring your own place to sleep (often a tent), food to eat (often ramen noodles) and the strangest clothing possible for the week (often not much). There is no Internet or cell reception. While drugs are technically illegal, they are easier to find than candy on Halloween. And as for money, with the exception of coffee and ice, you cannot buy anything at the festival. Selling things to people is also a strict no-no. Instead, Burners (as they are called) simply give things away. What’s yours is mine. And that often means everything from a meal to saliva.

In recent years, the competition for who in the tech world could outdo who evolved from a need for more luxurious sleeping quarters. People went from spending the night in tents, to renting R.V.s, to building actual structures.

“We used to have R.V.s and precooked meals,” said a man who attends Burning Man with a group of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. (He asked not to be named so as not to jeopardize those relationships.) “Now, we have the craziest chefs in the world and people who build yurts for us that have beds and air-conditioning.” He added with a sense of amazement, “Yes, air-conditioning in the middle of the desert!”

I bet some of those camps have nicer facilities than your standard porta-potty, but the $25,000 dues for the big fancy camps might be a bit beyond my means. I’ll stay here where there’s a fridge, air conditioning, and running water.

Share

If Certain People Would Just Be Honest….

…..they’d admit that they simply find black people, along with just about anything black people do, unfamiliar, confusing, and terrifying:

One of the key leadership figures in the Ferguson crisis has been Missouri Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson. It’s a shame, then, that Soraya Nadia McDonald had to explain that Johnson has not been photographed flashing gang signs with members of the community.

***

The gesture – which looks a bit like an A-OK sign turned on its side – is obviously harmless. It’s evidence of membership in a fraternity, not membership in a gang.

But that didn’t stop a variety of conservatives from pushing the line that Johnson was somehow involved directly in gang activity.

But I guess it would be rude to call those people racists.

Share

Naked Cause of Action

Jessie Nizewitz has sued Viacom and several production companies for failing to provide adequate pixelation of her genitalia during an episode of the VH1 show “Dating Naked,” on which she appears as a contestant, or whatever people on gimmicky destination dating shows are called. (“Failure to provide adequate pixelation” is my paraphrase of her claims, but isn’t that the greatest cause of action ever? Another good one I saw was “insufficient junk-blurring.”) It’s a pretty intriguing idea: what duty do the producers of a program that prominently features nudity—including in its title—have to protect the performers from actual nudity?

(If you simply must see the episode, here it is, queued up to her date with a dude named Keegan about 10:45 in.)

The New York Post apparently broke the story, but it doesn’t exactly have much legal analysis. The complaint isn’t up on the New York court system’s website yet, so I had to turn to Courthouse News to find out what Nizewitz is actually claiming:

She seeks an injunction, takedown, and punitive damages of more than $10 million for breach of oral contract, privacy invasion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and gross negligence.

The breach of contract claim seems like the most obvious one to me. She claims, essentially, that she agreed to appear on the show on the condition that they blur her privates at all times: Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, August 19, 2014

Don’t Give Special Rights To Anybody! Oh, Except Cops. That’s Cool. Ken White, Popehat, August 14, 2014

Cops and other public servants get special treatment because the whole system connives to let them. Take prosecutorial misconduct. If you are accused of breaking the law, your name will be released. If, on appeal, the court finds that you were wrongfully convicted, your name will still be brandished. But if the prosecutor pursuing you breaks the law and violates your rights, will he or she be named? No, usually not. Even if a United States Supreme Court justice is excoriating you for using race-baiting in your closing, she usually won’t name you. Even if the Ninth Circuit — the most liberal federal court in the country — overturns your conviction because the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence, they usually won’t name the prosecutor.

And leaks? Please. Cops and prosecutors leak information to screw defendants all the time. It helps keep access-hungry journalists reliably complaint. But leak something about an internal investigation about a shooting or allegation of police misconduct? Oh, you’d better believe the police union will sue your ass.

Cops, and prosecutors, and other public employees in the criminal justice system have power. It is the nature of power to make people believe that they are better than the rest of us, and entitled to privileges the rest of us do not enjoy.

Wingnuts’ sad dream to be cool: Why they worship Reagan and the military, Heather Digby Parsons, Salon, August 18, 2014 Continue reading

Share

Whither Regulations?

I frequently see rants from people about this government regulation or that. Many of them seem entirely reasonable or justified, because a great many regulations are annoying as crap on a day-to-day basis.

By Felix Andrews (Floybix) (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) or CC-BY-SA-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5-2.0-1.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Free market water! (This is in China, not Ohio, but my point stands.)

One thing I see far, far less frequently than invective against certain regulations, however, is inquiry into why those particular regulations exist. I know a few things about how laws and regulations come to be, and while it is a seriously messy process, it generally doesn’t happen completely out of the blue or for purely arbitrary reasons. I’ll just let Paul Krugman take it from here, in large part since he has at least one more Nobel Prize than me:

In the latest Times Magazine, Robert Draper profiled youngish libertarians — roughly speaking, people who combine free-market economics with permissive social views — and asked whether we might be heading for a “libertarian moment.” Well, probably not. Polling suggests that young Americans tend, if anything, to be more supportive of the case for a bigger government than their elders. But I’d like to ask a different question: Is libertarian economics at all realistic?

The answer is no. And the reason can be summed up in one word: phosphorus. Continue reading

Share

Those Who Forget History…

…might be condemned to embarrass themselves—and perhaps their whole country—in front of the world.

This past weekend the nation of Australia grimaced in sheer humiliation while their GWB-esque Prime Minister and clown car operator, Tony Abbott took a tour of Scotland. Forgetting his own nation, Australia, was once a British Protectorate, he vilified the cry for Scottish independence.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott has swaggered up to the plate with the kind of spectacular gaffe that may well dominate the news cycle for days to come. In a recent interview with The Times, Abbott was drawn into a question about the upcoming Scottish Independence Referendum, and it didn’t go well.

Australia became an independent nation (i.e. mostly free of the United Kingdom/British Empire) in 1901, and you’d think a prime minister might remember that. As for Scotland’s independence, well, I heard Braveheart is very popular there. Continue reading

Share

“Mouthbreathing Machiavellis”

This may be my favorite headline of at least the month, if not of all time, via Corey Pein at The Baffler: “Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream of a Silicon Reich.”

One day in March of this year, a Google engineer named Justine Tunney created a strange and ultimately doomed petition at the White House website. The petition proposed a three-point national referendum, as follows:

1. Retire all government employees with full pensions.
2. Transfer administrative authority to the tech industry.
3. Appoint [Google executive chairman] Eric Schmidt CEO of America.

This could easily be written off as stunt, a flamboyant act of corporate kiss-assery, which, on one level, it probably was. But Tunney happened to be serious. “It’s time for the U.S. Regime to politely take its exit from history and do what’s best for America,” she wrote. “The tech industry can offer us good governance and prevent further American decline.”

Welcome to the latest political fashion among the California Confederacy: total corporate despotism. It is a potent and bitter ideological mash that could have only been concocted at tech culture’s funky smoothie bar—a little Steve Jobs here, a little Ayn Rand there, and some Ray Kurzweil for color.

Pein links this concept to broader notions of the “Dark Enlightenment,” which is one of those movements that might only exist on the internet and seems like something concocted by someone who has read a large number of science fiction novels while also only meeting a small number of actual people. Apparently it also has something to do with an unironic appreciation of A Confederacy of Dunces.

I’ll just highlight a few bits of RationalWiki’s description of the movement (if one could call it that), and then hope they go away:

The neoreactionary movement (or just neoreaction; apparently abbreviated NRx), or the dark enlightenment, is a loosely defined cluster of Internet-based political thinkers who wish to return human society to forms of government older than liberal democracy.[1]

[1] You know, the forms of government that couldn’t create the Internet.

Neoreactionaries are the latest in a long line of intellectuals who somehow think that their chosen authoritarian thugs wouldn’t put them up against the wall. Possibly using sheer volume of words as a bulletproof shield.

Share