Alex: Dictionary writers need to learn their place!

I disagree with the dictionary writers about whether or not irregardless is a word. Actually, I disagree with the dictionary writers on a lot of words. I tend to side with linguists who point out and stress the evolution, flexibility and subjective nature of language.

I mean words that happen to be in the dictionary don't become words because they happen to be in a dictionary. Words are words because they are given subjective meaning by the people that use them. There is nothing intrinsic about the syllables you make when you say "apple" that implies a red-skinned crunchy fruit. What gives it this implication is a combination of the words history and its current use in different cultures and sub-cultures.

A word does not have to mean the same as the accumulation of its parts, as long as it is understood that the word does not mean the accumulation of its parts.

A word is a word if it's understood.

Honestly I think dictionary writers need to learn what their job is. Dictionaries are meant to record existing words so their meanings can be understood by those that have never encountered said words. If someone is learning English as a second language and they hear the word "irregardless" in conversation they need to be able to figure out what “Irregardless” means. In the future, If a person reads a references to hip-hop culture he needs to be able to understand what “dawg” means. If in the future words like “lmfao” and “rolf” stop being used, then people looking at old media need to be able to have resources to be able to understand them. They are words, just like any collection of syllables that Shakespeare wrote is a word.

Now, I personally don't like the word "irregardless". I don't think it's a good word. It's clunky and it almost always sounds like shit, but it's as much a word as any other.

Language changes, evolves and transforms it does so from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century. It always has. It always will.

The ancient Greeks bitched at their children for "bastardizing" the language they used; and so grammar snobs bitch today.

Nationalism & Patriotism - A Positive, Bonding Influence or An Infantile Disease?

So, it's almost Canada day---that flag-waving, fireworks-displaying, frenzy of patriotism.

The title refers to an Einstein quote: "Nationalism is an infantile disease." This is, obviously, a rather controversial position, being advocated by a man credited as one of the most intelligent human beings to have walked this earth, yet the wisdom in this quote is either ignored, forgotten, or if echoed by some disaffected youth sceptical of the value of nationalism, angrily dismissed.

Many may find the idea that being proud of "their country" is illogical to be inflammatory, but to them I ask a simple question---why be proud of something you made no decision about at birth, and that hardly qualifies as an accomplishment (being born or living within particular socially constructed borders)? What purpose(s) does this serve, and does such a purpose (or such purposes) make it desirable?

A common line is that "We are lucky to have the freedoms we do and should be grateful that we live in a country where we have these freedoms". Given that this has become a truism among many Western countries, it desperately needs to be examined closely.

What freedoms are being referred to, and where did they come from? Let's be clear that these freedoms did not simply fall from the sky, nor were they granted by compassionate or noble "founding fathers". Many of the freedoms we have today, from the current extent of freedom of speech, to racial equality and women's rights, have been gained by challenging the once"socially acceptable" line propagated by the socially and economically powerful. This is demostrated by the continued shortcomings in these aspects of our freedoms.

How, then, do we address shortcomings in freedoms gained at the national and international level? Do we trust Western leaders to address the shortcomings at home, while meanwhile imposing Western liberal democracy, supposedly in the interests of the people in other countries where it is being imposed? To avoid getting into a lengthy discussion on the failures of that idea for now, I'll simply assume anyone reading this sees what Western governments have done to "address" social problems in their states, and where imposition of a Western-style system has gotten states like Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, a continued struggle for genuine freedom involves recognition of whose interests the continued perpetuation of liberal-democratic states really upholds, and an international democratic struggle against these interests to build a better society in the interests of the average persons in the world, many of whom suffer greatly under the current system. In short, for societal progress, it is necessary to reject nationalism in favour of a democratic internationalism.

One final thing will be considered here. Do you believe that, as even liberals (at least in their rhetoric) argue, "All men (or more appropriately for now, people) are created equal", or do you believe that some are superior to others by virtue of nationality? If the latter, you lack an understanding of the socioeconomic conditions that led to current inequalities and cultural practices in the world. If the former, then I have one final point:

If all men are equal, why distinguish between nationalities? Claiming to recognize the equality of people of different nationalities, while arguing for this division, suggests an idea of "separate but equal". I don't mean to suggest that everyone who is 'proud of their country', but recognizes that they and their fellow citizens are not somehow superior by nature to citizens of other countries, is intentionally reasoning like a segregationist. In effect, though, the liberal idea does suggest "separate but equal" nations (hence all nations getting one vote in the U.N General Assembly, for instance), and the aim of that policy as applied to race some decades ago was clear, hence its rightful rejection by the civil rights movement. Such distinctions are socially constructed and only serve to divide the people, in the interests of a small group that is growing ever richer.

All this may seem disconnected from where I started off, but the point is simple---rather than joining in the coming frenzy of patriotism this weekend, please think it over, and join in a "frenzy" of international solidarity.

Alex: christian right and gender essentialism

I’ve been thinking about the Christian right’s position that “marriage should be between one man and one woman”, and It got me thinking about another question. Where do religious people sit on the question of individuals who are neither a male nor female?

Social conservatives tend to be very against LGBT rights, especially trans rights. Now I can imagine the social conservative probably will not believe in the gender dysphoria associated with transsexuals and transgendered people, and because of this disbelief the conservative will have a gender essentialist position. This means the conservative will believe that the gender of the individual is the same as the sex the individual was born with.

Here is where my question comes in. Even if we completely ignore individuals who are of one sex, and have the gender of another, we still have individuals with a sex that is neither what would traditionally be called “male” or “female”. What I’m thinking of here, is individuals with extra or deficit X and Y chromosomes, and individuals born with vestigial sexual organs.

I’m going to completely disregard the conservatives misunderstanding of what makes an individual belong to a certain gender and assume for the sake of argument that ones sex organs define ones gender. I’d like to ask, if marriage should only be between a “man” and a “woman”, then should an individual who is neither a man nor a woman, or an individual who is both a man and a woman be able to get married? And if so, which gender should this person be able to marry? And why?

I would love to hear some conservative opinions about this.

I’m usually a big conservative basher, but I’m going to try a different approach. You convert more bees with honey  :p 

Alex: philosophical dialogue

I got bored and wrote a philosophical dialogue. Enjoy or don't:

I’m sorry, brother; I’ve let you down. What ought I do to make amends?

Ought aint a question with a real answer

What do you mean?

I mean what I say,

Ought aint a real question

Ought has no answer

It’s too metaphysical

Even if ought had an answer

We could never no what it is

Ought aint a question

Ought aint answerable

I disagree

How can you disagree

Where do you get an ought from?

It’s not like ought can be derived from is.

It is the case that action x decreases pain

It is the case the action y does not cause a contradiction

If the action is done to fruition.

Where do you find your ought?

Give me a reason, not an assertion.

Why ought I do x or y?

because ought is a conditional

It’s always followed by an if

Whether the if is stated or not

I ought do action x if I want pain to decrease

I ought not do action y if I’m worried about contradictions

It all revolves around the if

That’s subjective

You point

It’s relativistic

so

so two people ought do two different things in the same situation

and both ought do exactly what they did.

Well some ifs are better then others

Maybe one of them did the wrong thing

How do you know which was right.

Start with some assumptions

Like pain is bad

And derive it from there.

Why ought we assume that?

Well I don’t like pain.

I know that much

What I’m assuming is

That people are like me in that

They do not like pain

I’m also assuming that

Other people exist

I think that’s the limit of my assumptions

Well would a position with less assumptions be better?

I suppose.

Does that mean

That the position of the individual who does not assume others exist

And thus does not considerer their pain

More justified in his assumption than you

Good question.

I suppose he might be.

But it would still be in his best interest

to consider other peoples pain.

Why is that?

Well I do believe that people exist.

I don’t know that people exist.

But I think it’s likely

And even if they do not exist

What ever makes me believe they exist

Also makes them interact with me

They’re interactions with me

Seem to cause me pain and pleasure

So helping them increases

The likelihood of them increasing my pleasure

Whether they exist or not.

Alex: The Republican Presidential Debate.

I'm watching the Republican presidential debate right now. Oh my god. These guys are terrifying. I don't really like Obama that much as a president. I don't think he's nearly forceful enough, and I think he's a little too far to the right for me, but given the choice between Obama and THESE GUYS, I'd pick him every time.

Alex: Utility and Autonomy

I've been doing a lot of thinking about the flaws in the Utilitarian moral system, and I think I may have found a way of working around them. i think an extra consideration needs to be made concerning autonomy. 

currently there are two major schools of utilitarianism, average and total. Both have major flaws inherent in them. The total utilitarian says that if the total utility of everyone in the society is higher than the total utility everyone in another potential society then the society with the higher total utility should be preferred. The problem with this is that a larger society with relatively unhappy people would be preferred to a small society with extremely happy people. This seems absurd, it would be quite easy for any society to bread itself into a positive utilitarian state, no matter how dystopic it may be.

The average utilitarian has his problems too, he claims that we should consider the utility of each member of the society and find an average utility for an individual member of said society. In this view the society with the highest average Utility should be preferred. The problem with this, is that the average utilitarian philosophy can justify the slaughter of all members of a society except the happiest. This is simply because the numerical value of the average utility between the highest and second highest individual in the society is always less than the numerical value of the average of the highest member alone.

I like to think that the average utilitarian has the beginnings of the right idea but something needs to be considered to limit it's justifications of murder, slavery and torture, and this is where Autonomy comes in. 

there are two major limitations of autonomy, death and constraint. These are the two things that can prevent an agent from being able to act in accordance with it's will. Slavery, torture as well as imprisonment fit into the category of constraint, though some of these have other extremely negative utilitarian elements to them. 

now I would like to advocate for an average utilitarian moral system, with the limit on utility being where grave violations of autonomy would be created. When a large violation of autonomy must be considered it should not be considered merely in ones utilitarian calculations. an extreme violation of autonomy should only be an option when it prevents another extreme violation of autonomy for more people than it inflicts said violation upon. I believe this solves the genocide problem.

what this would mean is that murder could not be morally considered unless it were guarantee to prevent more murder, and or prevent slavery, torture or forceful imprisonment. This would mean that murder or slavery could not be considered simply to make the rest of the society happier, which is a problem most utilitarians flounder over.

A society with this consideration, would do what ever it could to make the average member of the society happier without considering the option of slaughtering the unhappy people.

Megan: Intro

Hello,

My name is Megan and I will also be contributing to this blog. I am a University student with majors in Psychology, Sociology and Women's Studies. In my spare time I volunteer and work with various groups to promote equity and social justice. I will write far more informally, and I will probably use pictures more often.

If I could use gifs I would die happy, but unfortunately I can't.










Anyway, I will predominantly be writing about issues that concern the Queer and Trans* community, Feminism, Politics, World Issues, and Psychology.