Nationalist dogma: Right Wing Watch!

 Right Wing Watch

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/


Every time I want to know what the Right Wing nutjobs are up to, I put on my brave face and head over to this website. You can be sure there will be several absolutely bat-shit crazy people spouting pure, unadulterated and uninformed drivel. It is shocking that such bigotry still exists in the world today.

Just a few of examples from TODAY. Imagine the volume of pure bovine excrement emanating from the jaws of these right wingers over the course of a full year!

Anti-gay activist Robert Lopez has claimed gay marriage leads to human trafficking. That is disgusting. How dare he - and it's complete nonsense of course. But, even if he were right, he could make even that problem go away by making it easier for gay couples to adopt. But I bet he's not really for that either - the root of his "concern" is of course, homophobia, not children's human rights.

In the US, the Family Research Council (FRC) are basically a right-wing think tank that come up with all sorts of meaningless and unfounded claims. That fact that they call for prayers, for example in this bonkers article, should tell you the value they put on actual evidence.


LOL. It's all one big conspiracy for these people, isn't it? BIG GOVERNMENT BAD is about the extent of their vocab. If only we could trust that the "local government" advocates were competent to manage their own areas!


Now THIS sounds like real "Islamophobia" to me. Unclean spirit indeed! 'Cos praying to Allah is so much inherently worse than praying to the Abrahamic god ;)



Nationalism and Dogma
One of the features that I commonly encounter from the Right Wing is their ardent nationalism. It's really easy to label people with the "un-nationalistic" tag, which carries its own stigma and can rapidly lead to accusations of "treachery". I've recently been thinking about the ethics of nationalism from a consequentialist or egalitarian perspective, and asked myself the big question: can I be a "patriot" and also care about people all over the world on an equal basis?

The problem with caring too much about your own country is that it becomes hard to determine where to draw the line. We all automatically focus our attention on matters close to home, be it our own families or our own country. The UK is most important to me, for example. Most people want their own country to succeed, from an economic and cultural perspective. Knowing that this often results in another rival nation suffering from this success in some way, for example in terms of economic growth - so at what point do we decide to stop pushing our own success and think about helping our neighbours?

At the end of the day, I decided, I attribute my most important moral duties to humanity in general, and not only the citizens of one country. If the country I live in does wrong, it needs to answer for its crimes - it can't just assume to be in the right and be worthy of unflinching support. This is not treachery, it's fairness. To me, the All Things Considered approach is usually best.



"You'll have to prise my gun from my cold, dead hands"
The right wing are fond of their "slippery slope" arguments. One of their common forms of discourse could be summarised as:


"I'm concerned about X. Traditionally, we haven't allowed X. If we let X happen now, then it surely follows that Y will happen and then before you know it, we'll have Z."
The problem with small-government, right-wing nationalists and the "slippery slope" argument, is that rampant nationalism is eventually subject to the ultimate "slippery slope" argument itself: Continuing devolution of power can lead to parochial absurdity ad-infinitum. Consider the following.

----------

We start with raising our country up on a pedestal above others. This, and the fear and distrust which characterises the heart of right-wing sentiment, will lead to growing suspicion of outside influences ("foreigners") and pressure to become more isolationist. So certain ties are cut. But such old habits die hard.

Soon it will be intra-national concerns. It's the northerners now, for example. They are bringing the tone of the country down. Let's split into a two-tier system. We want to preserve the southern way of life.

Next, it's those weirdos in the next town. What a dump that place is. I refuse to shop there, we want nothing to do with it.

And finally, it's the neighbours across the road. They were always the real problem. They are NOT being a part of OUR group.

----------



UKIP
We can see the influence of excessive nationalism everywhere. In the UK, the UKIP political party want to pull us out of the EU.

Scotland are having a national debate and referendum on separating from the UK and becoming an entirely separate country.

It seems to me that this sentiment most often tends to be rather regressive.

Here is an example of extremist nationalism and dogma from earlier this month. The left-wing are hardly free from blame either where it comes to nationalism:

Communist dogma in Cuba is strictly nationalistic, eschewing any free market trade or private enterprise. I'm not a huge fan of unbridled capitalism, but jeez...

In fact, I've asked myself the question: can we even justify pulling out of the EU from the standpoint of moral responsibility? A great many people's livelihoods and wellbeing may depend on the continued survival of the EU. It seems callous to think that we would just leave it as a rat might jump from a sinking ship. I've heard some people even say that they actually want the EU to fail. Wow. Now that's heartless.

I want the EU to survive and prosper, but in doing so, it must take this opportunity to clean up its act. The whole institution needs to become less profligate, more accountable and preferably, financially auditable. The "fat-cat bureaucrat Eurocrat" culture must end.

In support of EU exit, the right-wing often push two ideas: that 1) foreign workers are coming to our shores, taking our jobs; and that 2) foreign families are coming to our shores as benefit and health care tourists. Aside from the vaguely racist overtones here, my objections to this are summarised below.

Firstly, it is most likely that statements 1) and 2) are mutually exclusive. Most families with decent jobs shouldn't ideally need to be on benefits (which is another argument for the living wage).

For 1), I'd say that those jobs are just that: jobs. They are not "ours". Anyone who perform them can be employed to do so. The real concern is that companies are not able to undercut prices too much by hiring overseas workers for too little pay. Also, we are equally able to go to their country and work as well. In fact, this is the obvious solution.

By demanding higher pay than their country normally offers its own workers, we can improve the state of the economy and drive social cohesion at the same time. Although this might require political lobbying to the companies present, it is part of the wider capitalist agenda and can work in both countries simultaneously.

Synergy can also work to all our benefit. When some of the foreign workers return home, they should have a positive image of our country, and strive to emulate that attitude in theirs.

For 2), aside from the evidential burden for this "problem" not being met to my satisfaction, we can't just deny health care to those who need it. The burden is on all of us to ensure that the apparent "gap" in wealth between our country and theirs is minimised. Then we might not feel so bad about going over there and using their health care system. And all these unfounded fears of eastern Europeans can be allayed.

Normative dogma in relationships: Pornography and Marriage

The Family "Research" Council (FRC) are at it again. Their stance on pornography is, as expected for a right-wing group, completely biased and not based in any kind of reality. They endorse the following link:

http://marri.us/get.cfm?i=RS09K01


Among the dubious assertions offered here, is this gem:

"Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity."

This statement makes 2 implicit assumptions. Firstly, that it is not permissible to desire another person sexually once married to your spouse. Yes, that's why couples NEVER break up and affairs NEVER go on for years. Better to accept the reality that getting married doesn't actually change one's sexual desires per se, and that many factors can cause the need to "look elsewhere". Properly considered, and with the prior understanding of both parties, I see no reason why this need even present a problem. Also, this logic fails to consider that fantasising about having sex with someone can be preferable to actually having sex with someone. You know, if you actually hold that whole physical "fidelity" thing in such high esteem, as these people seem to. That's right folks, porn can sometimes help couples stay together too! Who knew?! In cases of prolonged absence or difficulty in the bedroom, viewing porn can be a boon to a relationship. Of course, such nuance is beyond the ken of the geniuses at FRC.

Furthermore, people against their spouses viewing pornography face the significant philosophical problem of whether they actually want their spouses to be happy or not. When they married, they accepted them for who they were. Surely the aim of marriage is not to mould one's spouse into something more appealing to your own tastes, whether they like it or not? And if it is, how can this balanced against the spouse's own wellbeing?

The second implicit assumption in that statement is that infidelity is inherently bad. This is primarily a normative presupposition, and as such has its real basis in tradition, rather than in evidence. Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology have demonstrated that early human relationships likely comprised polyandry and polygamy, as well as monogamy. Studying our closest biological cousins, the great apes, reveals that there are many viable options for the formation of structures in relationships, and that monogamy is just one of these options.

Besides the pressures to conform to tradition, there is little reason for couples to not engage in extra-relationship sexual activity if they both agree to accept it. There is also little reason to hide from or be ashamed of such behaviour in an increasingly progressive world.

That's where right-wing institutions like the FRC and anti-gay individuals like Peter Barbera go wrong.

In trying to support traditional marriage, they would force otherwise stable marriages to become unhappy ones, for example by having no solutions for the sexual problems I discussed, or from "infidelity", or from gay people having to marry the "opposite" sex. That is what really harms marriage, forcing people into normative solutions that just add to their woes. This only serves to increase the divorce rate and break up relationships that really need to last, "for the kids". The fact that the divorce rate is so ridiculously high should immediately tell us that the current way we view relationships (or the traditional, right-wing view) is deeply flawed.

In Australia, nearly every third marriage ends in divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce)

In the UK, 42% of marriages eventually end this way (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2011/sty-what-percentage-of-marriages-end-in-divorce.html)


I hope I don't need to state the deleterious affects that divorce has on the couple involved as well as any children they may have.

But no, the solution is not pragmatism, but gushing about how bad things are these days, and desperate and pathetic attempts to go back to the way things were. Like, you know, hundreds of years ago when they had, um, slavery and, um, no divorce. Wait. What?

Ever consider that instead of infidelity itself being the problem, it may be that our attitudes towards infidelity are the real problem? I just wanted to point that out.

The real solution to the divorce problem likely includes at least some kind of social encouragement for, and a degree of obligation for, a pre-marital discussion of a grown-up and serious nature. Here both parties voice their expectations, presumed commitments, and actions to take in a wide range of scenarios. Honesty and candour are essential. The notions of fidelity and child-rearing should be raised. Broad agreements should be reached before the relationship progresses to marriage. Whilst this probably occurs behind the scenes a lot of the time, I can't help but think it should be more formal, as a foundation for something that so deeply affects people's lives.

And of course, challenging normative assumptions of what level of fidelity is best in a relationship never hurts!

Contrary to what some of you may believe, I do not regard responsible porn as an anathema to feminism. In fact, the rights of sex workers (many of whom are women) would be well served by increasing regulation of the industry and encouragement of discussions of boundaries for what will be performed. In fact I have heard even radical feminists (somewhere on this blog) advocate for visible boundary discussion from actors at the start of scenes. This is a grown-up, sensible and progressive idea.

Another notable feminist advocate for responsible porn is Greta Christina.

The real threat to human rights and overall wellbeing comes from the prohibition of porn. Like with the disastrous attempts to prohibit alcohol sales in the US in the 1920-1930's,
stifling porn will only drive it underground, with very negative results for the sex workers involved. One of the positive aspects of porn is that the women are chiefly held up as the stars, and are incredibly well paid in the mainstream, or as a contract star, as they should be. This is a valid choice of career, and it works, with the proviso that they can leave at any time. Of course, in underground porn, this would not be the case.

One of the most shocking and unthinking observations I've heard about porn is "Only an idiot pays to watch porn".

Au contrare. In my opinion, only an idiot would NOT pay for it. You cannot support a sustainable and responsible industry on will alone. We need to pay our hard earned cash, to ensure the actors are well paid looked after. This is why regulation is so important.

The prevalence of free porn is not only what drives down standards and wellbeing, but what is the most visible and pushy form, the type that is most despised on Netmums - as free porn must aggressively promote itself to achieve advertising revenue. Paid for porn is happy to restrict advertising to its own site networks and past members.

In my view, the solution for "dealing" with pornography is similar to that for other "vices" (like drugs) as they would say: Regulate the industry to monitor the conditions and watch for abuses of rights, whilst establishing clear boundaries and increasing standards.

Philosophical Arguments from Evil

I just wanted to put across a couple of commonly-themed logical arguments that I heard on podcasts recently, that really caught my attention and resonated with my own logic. They certainly support the atheistic position for me.

The Evil God Hypothesis

Thanks to Professor Stephen Law for this one.

http://nogodcast.com/2013/09/28/episode-19-philosophy-with-stephen-law/

How can God allow evil such as we witness daily on the News channels, to exist in the world? It is a good question, and one I don't think the theists have a satisfactory answer to.

Of course, the standard response might involve the following.

If God is Good:-

-Evil is necessary because humans have to have free will in order to follow their own devices and not be God's puppets

-Evil is necessary in order to show a contrast for Good. If no evil existed, we would not be able to define anything as “good” because there would be nothing to compare it to

-Evil may be necessary because there is a long-term plan in place by God's Divine Will which involves the prior necessity of these evils having taken place.

However, the weakness of this reasoning can easily be demonstrated. It turns out that exactly the same arguments can be used in a directly opposite scenario where God is Evil, and evil is expected – here good is the thing that needs to have its existence explained.

If God is Evil:-

-Good is necessary because humans have to have free will in order to follow their own devices and not be God's puppets

-Good is necessary in order to show a contrast for Evil. If no good existed, we would not be able to define anything as “evil” because there would be nothing to compare it to

-Good may be necessary because there is a long-term plan in place by God's Divine Will which involves the prior necessity of these “goodnesses” having taken place.

That makes just as much sense as the theist's original arguments. The notion that it is really “Satan” who is in charge (consistent with the “evil” God hypothesis), is in fact, arguably more representative of the real world, in that certain features are as we would expect if that model held. In particular, the existence of other proposed gods, the notion of Hell, and the whole idea that the “good” God is actually in charge in order to avert suspicion sound like exactly the sort of thing a Machiavellian dictator would do.

At the very least, the “Evil” God hypothesis throws enough doubt and discredits the good God hypothesis to such a degree as to make it pretty worthless in my book.

-

The problem of Gratuitous Evil

Erik Wielenberg came up with this (or at least this refinement).

1. An all-knowing, all-loving God wouldn't allow Gratuitous Evils to take place
2. Gratuitous Evils probably do take place
3. God probably does not exist

http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2013/11/05/episode-121-divine-deception-with-guest-erik-wielenberg/

Let's think of a bad situation, which leads to unnecessary death, and which God could have prevented if He so chose. So bad in fact - and caused by natural circumstances, not humans, so no issues of “free will” involved - that it is a gratuitous, or unnecessary and unjustified, evil. The example given is that a foal is trapped in a forest fire, is horribly burned but escapes the edge of the inferno only to die from its injuries or dehydration some days later. Nobody could possibly benefit from this event, it only has negative connotations. Of course the theist's answer to these sorts of issues would often be “God works in mysterious ways. We cannot hope to know his bigger plans or intentions”. However, we shall see that this is a facile and illogical answer, inconsistent with the facts.

The argument that God (or his intentions) are unknowable is commonly used. I've stated elsewhere in my blog that I find this message inconsistent with the notion that we can have private conversations with Him whenever we choose. That we can explain exactly what we want and He hears it (why He wouldn't just know it already, being the omniscient deity that He is, is anyone's guess) with no errors or loss in information, and yet when we do get acts of nature or events that cried out for intervention, and many people prayed for just such interventions, God is conspicuous by His absence. Then, it's always “Oh you didn't pray hard enough”, or “you weren't faithful enough”. Yes, folks, isn't it odd that the answer to crises of faith, is always more faith. Never more insight.

“So at 5 p.m. when the storm hits and everyone is praying for deliverance, God has his fingers in his ears, going “la, la, la, I can't hear you”. But at 6 p.m. when those same people who have just had their homes and lives devastated, are praying to God for help with recovering from the thing he just allowed to happen, we're expected to believe He's listening and willing and able to assist? 'Kay”

Kasparov the Deity

The idea that we are God's children and that He is a father figure, some kind of master or expert, is pretty absurd to me. One explanation that is used to support the “Unkowable God” hypothesis is the analogy that we are taking part in a game of Chess with God. He makes a seemingly crazy move, opening up the board and making a victory seem imminently possible for us. And yet, this might be exactly what a Grand Master would do to an initiate to get him to play his hand, only to reveal some yet unknown move which could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. It sounds good, doesn't it?

Except, God doesn't exactly have a great track record at being a Grand Master of anything, if you don't pre-suppose that he created the Universe in the first place. He is nothing if not predictable in the Old Testament. He has shown in the Bible that he shares human emotional traits and weaknesses, using deception and hate to his own ends. There are so many examples I don't know where to start. The “unknowable” aspect of his character is where things get really interesting in this argument though.

It follows that with time, we bear witness to an ever greater number of Gratuitous Evils, as terrible events occur somewhere in the world. In order to allow these to happen, it logically follows from the theist's own reasoning, that God must become more and more “unknowable” with time, as in order to compensate for these Evils, there must be a colossal number or amount of “goodnesses” due to take place somewhere in future, as yet unknown to us. And yet, as a species we are constantly learning and making technological advancements, increasing our knowledge and understanding of the universe. This fact is in direct contradiction to God becoming more “unknowable”, as everything else is becoming less “unknowable”.

In order to satisfy this conundrum, the theist must allow God to retreat into theoretical realms beyond the purview of the universe, and so beyond all effective relevance to the world.