On the Problems with the Privatization of Justice

I really, really, really, really, really should not have to be writing this.

But you know what? I'm writing this anyway. I''m writing this because I got into an argument with someone in the YouTube comments of a video about the proper role of government* and what socialism (SOCIALISM!!!eleventy-one!!) is** and is not. And I'm writing it because a) YouTube comments don't give me enough space to do a full-on rant, and b) it feels a lot better to rant where I can be arbitrarily censorious, like a good little Atheist+ #FTBorg know the people who read this thing are capable of rational argument and basic reading-comprehension skills.

And here is where I explain what's up with the title. This person's final comment (or rather, the one that led to me ragequitting on trying to get through to xim) asserted that the United States had socialism (SOCIALISM!!!one-hundred-eleven!!) because among other things, the government controls the police.

Now, that's not strictly wrong. The government is representative (though I do tend to doubt this person would agree, what with a [slur redacted] with the middle name HUSSEIN Kenyan Muslim Communist Fascist Atheist child of Malcolm X***  in the White House), and it does own the means of producing law enforcement.

My problem with this line of argument is that the person was presenting socialized police as a Bad Thing.****

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

Let us look at the suggested way this could work, being as charitable as possible.

In this person's ideal world, there are no (jackbooted) government police enforcing the law. Instead, the law is enforced by private companies. This arrangement works rather like insurance: you pay a protection subscription fee, and if something bad happens to you your justice company will investigate, arrest the suspect, hold a trial, and administer punishment.

We will start with the most obvious objection that applies in the most charitable world. It is this company's job to do all of the above, but only for paying customers. Doing this for non-paying customers would cut into their profit margin (and it's unethical in this framework to accept a service you haven't paid for).

Meet Freddy. He lost his job when the factory closed, and is scraping by on his meager savings while he looks for another. Because he hasn't got a source of income, he has to cut a few things out of the budget: medicine, news, justice subscription, gas. He gets robbed at gunpoint. Freddy brings the case before his old justice company. Because Freddy does not have a subscription, the company does not do anything beyond laughing in his face (spitting optional) and having security show him the door. In other words, such a system decides that the poor do not deserve to have any protection, and it is open season on anyone who cannot afford justice******. Ladies, gentlemen, children, teenagers, and non-binary adults, some people are now below the law, so there is no longer any such thing as Rule of Law!

And next, a less obvious objection that still applies in the most charitable world. Suppose Alice, the CEO of Al's Protection Racket, breaks into your house and empties your safe. Now, how are you going to get any justice? Bring a charge against her -- no, she owns the arresting officers and the court, if you subscribed to the Racket; and if you're one of Boxing Jack's, that would mean a hot war between the companies if he decided to get involved. Organize a boycott -- boycotts are tricky to manage, especially boycotts of an essential service, or of a provider you don't buy from anyway. We now have people who are above the law, and again, there is no longer any such thing as the Rule of Law!

Now, let's move to slightly less charitable worlds.

The first one: Pierre subscribes to Bertha's Bruisers. Dave does not. Pierre accuses Dave of cheating him out of millions, and it ends up in the court of Bertha's Bruisers. Dave is innocent, but Pierre writes a letter to Bertha threatening to take his business elsewhere if Dave gets off. This one time, justice prevails, but this isn't the first time this has happened, and the Bruisers are losing business. Bertha gets a clever idea: premium membership. Pay an extra monthly fee, and her courts will find in your favor no matter what, as long as you aren't outbid. Presumption of innocence? Reasonable doubt? Nah. The judge is already bought.

Next: Meet Six-Finger Johnny, co-owner of It's-Getting-Hard-To-Think-Of-Original-Names Limited, a name his business partner Harriette advised him to go with when he couldn't come up with a name. Johnny's business has been flagging lately, but as he walks past Alice's building, he gets an idea. When he gets back to the IGHTTOON Ltd. offices, he pulls up a list of the people who live near subscribers but don't subscribe to his services. Then he sends some of his employees around to rearrange the faces of anyone on the list. Coercive? Yes. But who's going to stop him? The other companies all decide that it's not worth an open war to avoid losing a little business, especially since Johnny offers reduced rates to anyone who enlists and as such has the biggest army of them all.

Finally, Harriette. Harriette is a bit of a homophobe. A lot of one, in fact. She believes that being gay should be punishable by death. So, with Johnny's acceptance, she issues a law that applies in all territory influenced by IGHTTOON: sodomy is now a capital offense. Pleased by the success of this law (none of those filthy people exist in her domain anymore!), she starts writing new laws and, with the help of Johnny's work, rules with an iron fist. Johnny and Harriette are now warlords in all but name.

*according to this person, "none at all". At least as far as I can tell.
**for the curious, it has a specific technical meaning. It is not just any government program you disagree with. Socialism means that the methods used to make things and provide services belong to either the people who use them to do so or a part of society that represents the whole. I spent hours arguing with this person about why any totalitarian or dictatorial state was by definition not socialist (that being that the part of society that operates the means of production does not represent the workers or the people). Heck, it's possible to have capitalist socialism; you just need to have a market economy where people own the things they use to make a living and the products of their efforts.
***Amalgamated trademarks of the Birthers, the John Birch society, WorldNetDaily, and other far-right sources. Used without permission under Fair Use for purposes of parody.
****For the record, the police system as it currently exists has a lot of problems (racism in the ranks, cops protecting their own from responsibility for wrongdoing, a tendency to attract people whose reason for wearing the uniform is to legally assault people [or as a certain Australian game reviewer puts it, SERVE AND PROTECT!], et cetera). All of these problems would also exist with a privatized police system, and I suspect most of them would be worse.*****
*****Holy [expletive redacted] Batman, that footnote looks like it's got swearwords in it.
******A bit like the current system*******, but this time it's actually codified. In the current system, our hypothetical poor person at least theoretically has some ability to see justice done. In the proposed system, the poor person not being able to get justice is a [expletive redacted] feature. 
*******Which is why we need to eliminate societal prejudices against the poor. Unrestricted capitalism is only going to exacerbate them, if anything.

The Bedlamite's Own Ethics III: The F***ing Point

Now, from warnings to solutions.

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

 What I will discuss here is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is, in the words of Star Trek, "the good of the many outweighs the good of the one", although this is something of an oversimplification.

In general, Utilitarianism is based on the idea that "good" and "evil" are sourced from the effects of a thing on sentient beings. Unlike other forms of ethics with a similar premise, such as Objectivism, it considers the net harm and net benefit to all sentient beings of an action, rather than considering each sentient the sole source of morality.

So, when a thing can cause both harm and benefit to different sentients, Utilitarianism compares the total harms to the total benefits: measuring the good and evil of an action and choosing the "greater good" or the "lesser evil".

Now then, there are several forms of Utilitarian thought. They diverge on a few points: how much indirection of cause is acceptable (that is, are only immediate effects considered? Are the effects out to the end of the universe considered? Does the harm of an action stop being considered when it reaches a being with the ability to choose not to continue the chain of cause and effect?), the importance of rules in decision-making (If someone carries out an action that normally has overall negative effects, but it has positive effects, is that action right? Is the answer different if the person is aware of the positive effects?), and exactly what is defined as "good" (Pleasure? Order? Negative freedom? Positive freedom? Effectiveness?).

What I use goes as follows (this is an abbreviated version):

1. Things have meaning because sentient beings choose to give them meaning.
2. "Goodness" and "Badness" are therefore defined, respectively, as that which causes pleasure to sentient beings and that which causes suffering to sentient beings.
3. If an action brings both pleasure and suffering to the same or a different sentient beings, whether it is good or bad depends on the balance of the two.
4. Some types of action have a general tendency to cause more suffering than pleasure, or vice versa. Statistically, these actions can be called "bad" or "good".
5. There is not usually sufficient time or objectivity when making a decision to look at all possible consequences of the decision. Therefore, rules must be established based on these likelihoods to allow decisions to be made quickly and objectively.

Atheism+: In Which Talking Horses are Used to Discuss Intersectionality

Okay, I'm feeling a bit uncreative this week, so I'm going to be expanding on something that Natalie Reed posted to her Twitter here (yes, late, I know). Another SJ post, this time discussing how the narratives behind specific oppressions feed into one another. If you aren't interested, I'm sure you know the way to TVTropes by now.

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

This week, I will be examining the Brony phenomenon and how it, or more specifically its anti-fans are connected to a social-justice issue. For those of you who don't pay attention to geek and fandom culture, the "Brony" community is the adult male fans of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" (the adult female community being "Pegasisters").

Of course, I will say that there are some legitimate criticisms. There's the legitimate criticisms of any fandom (obsessiveness; horrifying, awful,  and/or horrifyingly awful fanfic), and there's the specific legitimate criticisms of any adult fandom of a work intended for children (insistence on making the work one exclusively for adults, tendency to interpret the work in incredibly cynical ways), and there's the ones that are MLP-fandom-specific (look, just because she's got rainbow hair and stereotypically masculine interests...). But there are criticisms that aren't legitimate, and I will be exploring one here.

Specifically, I will be exploring the "stop watching cartoons for girls" criticism. This is, at its core, the idea that there is something "funny" or "disgusting" or just plain "wrong" about gender-deviant men. It is similar to the idea that there is something funny about a man wearing a skirt, or disgusting about a man with an effeminate appearance.

So, how does this tie into SJ, aside from PHMT? I'm getting to that.

Let's look at the underlying narrative behind "gender-deviance in men is bad". Or rather, let's look at several of them.

The Gender Narrative: In a patriarchal system, men are valued more than women. As such, the system places less value on a man who has interests or traits it assigns as "feminine" and/or lacks those it assigns as "masculine". In other words, a man whose interests include sewing and cooking, or that do not include sports, is considered worth less than a man whose only interests are running a Fortune 500 company, playing rugby, hunting megafauna with a suspiciously large cannon, eating raw meat, enjoying the company of several women at a time, and combinations of the above.

The Gender Identity Narrative: Of course, the ultimate expression of an "effeminate man" (in the ways that patriarchal and transphobic societies view the term "man") is a trans woman. Deviation from the "masculine ideal" is considered a trans* trait, and a transphobic society is, well, transphobic.

The Sexual Orientation Narrative: See the Gender Identity narrative, but read "trans woman" as "gay man", "trans*" as "gay", and "transphobic" as "homophobic".

Of course, this might not be the best example; given that it does not tie into racist, ableist (beyond "hurr hurr, girly stuff is r*****ed"), or  classist narratives.

Oh, and an administrative note: I might be taking an extended break from this blog. I've been having some computer problems, and I have finals coming up; so I'll be posting intermittently if at all. I should be back to regular posting by February at the latest.

Atheism+: Of Opportunity and Outcome.

I know that some of you might be capital-L Libertarians, and that some of you might be the lowercase-L ones who find the American Right Wing Nutcase Libertarians absolutely insufferable. And yes, I know that some of you aren't libertarians at all. But there's an argument that keeps getting thrown around that I thought I'd debunk.

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

Now then, some people say "I'm not against equality of opportunity, I'm against enforcing equality of outcome. It isn't fair to the hard workers for someone to be given the same outcomes they earned just for being black/female/gay/etc. Why do you keep insisting that I'm racist/sexist/homophobic for saying this?"

And here is where I will explain, in detail, that yes, that is a bigoted argument. I will tell you why accepting that argument makes you bigoted. If you dislike being called bigoted more than you dislike actually being bigoted, this is the moment when you should  leave now and come back next week.

Let us start with a few basic premises:
P1: Inequalities of outcome exist, when not compensated for.
P2: Those inequalities have a statistically significant tendency to favor some ethnic groups, genders, sexual orientations, and such over others.
P3: Any difference in individual outcomes results from an inherent trait (defined as a trait that is purely internal to a person), an extrinsic trait (defined as a trait that results from the actions of others, including actions based on intrinsic traits; this is what we will discuss when considering differences of opportunity, [EDIT: as well as initial conditions, such as family situation]), or a difference in luck (defined as traits or differences in circumstance that are neither intrinsic nor extrinsic as defined above, such as differences in the realization of an opportunity due to events beyond the control of either the individual or any person with power over the individual).
P4: Luck cannot account for statistically significant differences between groups. That is what statistical significance means.
P5: Any inherent trait that is evenly distributed (defined as distributed as probability dictates without any bias toward nor against any population) between all populations cannot cause a statistically significant difference of outcomes.

Let us add an implication of that argument as a premise:
P'6: It is possible, given the current population, for general equality of opportunity to coexist with general inequality of outcome.

Now, let us draw conclusions:
C1 (P3, P4, P5): If a statistically significant difference in outcomes exists between groups, it must result from either a difference in opportunities or an inherent trait present in one group to a statistically significant greater degree than in the other.
C2 (P2, C1): Either different groups have significantly different opportunities, or inherent traits are distributed such that an inherent trait impacting outcomes is predicted by membership in one group.
C'3 (P'6, C2): An inherent trait impacting outcomes is predicted by membership in one group.

Or, in other words, if you believe that significant inequality between average outcomes of racial, gender, or similar groups does not imply inequality between opportunities, you logically must believe that one group is less moral/intelligent/hardworking/suited for the task in question than another, which is the definition of bigotry.

That said, though, there's multiple kinds of bigotry. You might be making arguments that you haven't thought all the way through, or you might not have noticed the tendency of black characters to die a lot in movies, or you might be the person who uses the word "f*****" without realizing what it means. The fact that you are actually concerned about being seen as racist/sexist/ableist/etc. seems to show that you aren't the sort of person who goes around burning crosses.

Atheism+: Misandry!

A common trope in some circles is that there are stereotypes about the privileged group(for instance, in race, the idea that white people can't jump), and therefore that equality has been achieved. Leaving aside for the moment that the stereotypes are in no way equal (h*nk**s can't dance vs. "THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR WOMEN!!!1!!"), my response is "So? The fact that the harmful tropes exist for everyone is not an argument in favor of their continued existence. For each of the harmful tropes, we would all be better off without it."

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

I know all of you are itching for some examples, so I proudly present the first part of "Tropes vs Men and Women Alike".

(and yes, I know that the examples I'm giving and the discussion associated with each assume that the men and women in question are straight, neurotypical, and cis. This is to make the discussion easier; if you want to go into the problems these tropes cause for gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, neuroatypical, and trans* people, I leave that as an exercise for readers who want extra credit. Read a bit on intersectionality, and be sure to show your work.)

1. Men's and Women's Separate Spheres
   
   Vs Men: You've all seen the ads where a man tries to cook and succeeds in burning water. There are other issues with this, that go deeper: male teachers, especially at the elementary level, are looked at askance (more on this later); male nurses don't fit in with the ladies; a man who is interested in interior design or fashion or hairdressing or [at this point the Bedlamite becomes somewhat shifty-eyed] who likes cartoons about magic talking horses and friendship isn't a "real man"; men tend not to get custody in divorces; and so on. This is one of the few points on which I actually agree with the people who tend to end up sporked on Man Boobz: this trope needs to go.
   Vs Women: I will leave aside for the moment that tech is generally marketed to men, and that (despite actual demographic studies indicating, if anything, the reverse) video games are considered a male-dominated space, and that appeals to masculinity are common in advertising, and that a lot of people have trouble imagining a female engineer or soldier. Let's look at how "men can't operate a blanket", specifically,  harms women. Someone needs to do the hard work of making dinner, teaching students, tending the sick, designing house interiors, designing clothes, fixing hair, raising children, and operating blankets. If men can't do that, who needs to be the ones doing it? That's right, people who aren't men. Women. And if she wants to code, or fight in a war, or put out fires, or walk a beat; well, sweetheart, you can do that on your own time.
2. Men Think, Women Feel
   
   Vs Women: I shouldn't need to explain this, but here goes anyway. The idea here is that women are more emotional than men, which is something of a double-edged sword. First off, emotion is usually portrayed as inferior to reason in a number of works (science fiction is a particularly bad offender) and our culture tends to view emotion as inferior. We don't need any of that artsy ****, or anyone who can talk about "feelings"; we need people in the Hard and Dismal Sciences! Second, emotion includes the more painful emotions. If an author needs someone to go into hysterics [language choice deliberate] or someone to traumatize, odds are that they'll pick a woman. And this means that a girl reading these stories learns that she can't be strong, or shut out emotion when she needs to, if she wants to be a Real Woman.
   Vs Men: And if women have to be emotional all the time, the flip side of that is that men aren't allowed to be emotional. They aren't allowed any of that mushy stuff. Well, only a little. Just hate, anger, lust, and anything else that drives them to compete. No going into "cute overload" at the sight of a box of kittens. No showing fear when your mates at the pub dare you to stick your **** in a box of scorpions. No remembering what your wife wanted for Valentine's. No talking about the desire to demonstrate any of the above to your shrink. Just the stuff that makes you want to work 9 to 5 so that you can upstage the guy you don't like, or go into a war to shoot at the guy Glorious Leader doesn't like. Everything else has to be bottled up or channeled through one of the above.

More on this later. If you want to submit an example that you think runs only one way, or you have a favorite example of your own, mention it in the comments.

The Bedlamite's Own Ethics II: Morality as Oppression

One important thing to keep in mind when examining or devising a code of ethics is that ethics can often serve as a means of enforcing existing power structures. History and law, it is famously said, are written by the winners, and they often serve the purpose of making sure the winners stay winners.

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

Let us examine a famous case of this: that of Genesis 9:25. In the Bible, specifically the Book of Genesis, it is commanded that the sons of Canaan serve the sons of his brothers and cousins, because of the (unspecified) actions of his father Ham. It is difficult to believe that there were no Canaanites who thought, "hey, why are we doing this? We can see that the sons of Israel are free, and we are not; why shouldn't we be free?". And at some point, our theoretical slave mentions this within earshot of his master. And the master drags him before the temple leadership. And the priest hears both sides of the case. And then the priest carefully consults the Books. And then the priest mentions the "Cursed be Canaan" line. And who is a mere human to question the word of God (well, Noah actually, who was speaking for God at that point)?

In fact, it's not difficult to imagine that a slightly-less-than-ethical priest added the story when facing that exact situation shortly after the Israelites raided Canaan.

From a memetic perspective, the morality promoted by a society is simply a memeplex that dictates a set of "Thou Shalt"s and "Thou Shalt Not"s. Memes that lead to a more effective society ("thou shalt not kill", "thou shalt breed") survive, while memes that lead to a less effective society ("thou shalt steal", "thou shalt not go to war") are rejected. But these memes are rules handed down from an authority, and as such tend to have their own rules mixed in that serve no purpose but to cement the existing power structure.

Thou Shalt Not Hold Controversial Opinions.
Thou Shalt Not Rebel Against Thine Betters.
Thou Shalt Know Thy Place.
Thou Shalt Obey Thy Superiors.

This is not to say, of course, that all of a code handed down from an authority figure is wrong. But one must ask: is this rule in place because it helps society function better, or because it keeps those at the top on top? (And, for that matter, should the society in question continue to function, if it needs that rule to exist; but that is a question for another time.)

There are a few solutions to this problem.

One is Kant's Categorical Imperative. Kant proposed that one "should only act by that maxim that one would accept as a universal rule"; that is, act only in a given manner if one would allow others to act in the same manner. That is, there is one set of rules, and those rules apply equally to everyone. There are problems with this, though: society may have imbalances that favor one group over another, even if the rules are the same. Personal circumstances may render one set of rules oppressive to one person that are trivial to another.

Another solution is to constantly re-examine the rules and their impacts. Keep an open mind, looking at ways that the rules might impact others.

Atheism+: A Glossary of Terms

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

So, some of you (especially the atheists among you) may have heard about Atheism+. Some of you (if there's even any of you who read this thing) may be wondering what my own position is on it.

I'm for it.

The "'Guys, Don't Do That' Incident" made it clear that the atheist movement has some problems when it comes to social justice issues. More recent events have shown that the problems are fairly pervasive. So, a new branch of the movement is necessary. If we want to be better than the religions we oppose, we must move beyond their mistakes. We must take an active stand against the traditions of bigotry that our societies have inherited from their religions. Otherwise, we are only better than they in that we know that evolution works and homeopathy doesn't.

As my first contribution to the movement (and in keeping with this blog's tendency to be Things I Find Interesting 101), I am posting some jargon for newcomers to the Atheism+ movement to help them understand discussions.

Note: If you can't find a term in its alphabetical section, look under "*" first, then go through the "Common variants" listing of similar terms.

*H*T: Acronym: (foo) Hurts (bar) Too. The fact that members of privileged groups can suffer as a result of the underlying systems resulting in their privilege, often as a result of deviation from the expectations of that system or the forbiddance thereof. See Also: MRA. Common variant: PHMT (Patriarchy, Men)
*ism: Institutionalized oppression of or bias against an unprivileged group by a society. Differs from the colloquial definition in that the bias or oppression must be systematic or institutionalized and must be supported by the society. Common variants: sexism, racism, ableism.
*splain: To assume that one's position of privilege grants one better knowledge of a subject than less privileged persons, and to attempt to educate them on the subject unasked, esp. on issues related to privilege and/or in defiance of statements that they already understand the subject. Not simply an explanation or correction to an error of fact issued while a member of a privileged group; *splaining must include an assumption without reason that a member of the non-privileged group is lacking in the knowledge presented, or, in the case of a dispute over a point of fact, an assumption without reason that a member of the non-privileged group is incorrect rather than oneself being in error. Common variants: mansplain, whitesplain, condesplain.
Atheism: A position of disbelief in deities. Ranges from lack of belief in a deity to belief that the existence of a deity is impossible. Typically associated with skepticism. 
Atheism+: 1. A position of belief that combines atheism and fully intersectional social justice. Usually includes a belief that the latter is necessary to or an inevitable conclusion of the former or that both are conclusions of skepticism. 2. A political and social movement based on def. 1, composed exclusively of persons accepting the position of belief but not containing all such persons.
Cisgender: Having an assigned gender role and anatomy at birth consistent with one's psychological gender and body image.
Egalitarianism: A belief that people should be treated equally; that every person should have an equal chance of success, however "success" is defined. Reasons for this vary from simple fairness to the idea that equality benefits everyone.
Intersectional:  Taking into consideration that multiple forms and types of prejudice and privilege may feed into or support one another. For instance, intersectional feminism is likely to take into consideration the ways in which misogyny and homophobia are connected.
Kyriarchy: The social structure that enforces privilege. Common variant: patriarchy.
LGBTIQAAN&C: Acronym: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer/Questioning, Asexual, Agender, Nonconforming, and Cetera. Catch-all term for persons who do not fit the social norm of cisgender, heterosexual, and conforming to typical gender roles. Common variants: Too many to list, but most begin with LGBT or GLBT. Another common variant is QUILTBAG.
MRA: Acronym: Men's Rights Activist. Alternately formulated as Misogynist Raving *******. A person, often male, who believes that effects resulting from PHMT instead result from feminism, and who seeks to reverse the effects of the latter.
Microaggression: The most common manifestation of privilege and *ism. A seemingly-trivial decision, often unthinking, that due to being informed by *ist perspectives harms a member of an unpriviliged group. These decisions may even appear trivial to the person harmed, but add up to form larger problems.
PC: Acronym: Politically Correct. Common denigration of egalitarian movements and ideas, implying that they are a result of conformity to society. Contrasted with Politically Incorrect, which is often used to mask *ist attitudes as "thinking for oneself".
Prejudice: The act of making generalizations or unfounded assumptions about a group of people, typically harmful generalizations or assumptions about a non-privileged group. Often includes applying a generalization or assumption to each member of the group. Unlike *ism, prejudice can be against either privileged or unprivileged groups.
Privilege: A benefit or set of benefits socially granted to one group at the expense of another. Typically takes the form of traditions opposing one group, assumptions about a group or its individual members, and/or socioeconomic factors that for historical reasons place unequal pressures on a group or its members.  Opposed by egalitarianism and social justice. Note that lacking one type of privilege does not mean that one lacks all types; multiple types exist. Also note that simply having privilege is not in itself a negative trait and does not inherently make one's opinions worthless.
Privilege blindness: The tendency of a privileged individual, especially one new to social justice, to not be aware of privilege that has not been pointed out. May involve a belief that certain rights are "zero-sum", or that granting a right to a group currently lacking it will result in the denial of that right to a group currently possessing it; and may be accompanied by a belief that one's own lived experiences are universal. Note that being aware of one type of privilege does not make one aware of others.
Skepticism: A belief that knowledge is best obtained by rational inquiry and the scientific method. Typically associated with atheism.
Social Justice: A belief, almost always associated with egalitarianism, that a) people are not currently equal, and b) that the group most harmed by this should be harmed less or not at all. Typically, it is believed reducing the harm to the most-harmed group, or more accurately dismantling the socioeconomic structures causing the harm, will benefit all people.
Trigger:  1. n. A situation, including written descriptions of situations, that can result in stress responses in persons who have experienced the same or a similar situation. 2. v. To cause such a stress response. Common triggers include war, violence, and abuse.
TW: Acronym: trigger warning. See Also: trigger.
Xe: Gender-neutral pronoun, used for persons whose gender is unknown or neither male nor female. Common variants: ze, singular they. Possessive form: xir. Direct object form: xim.

The Christian* Privilege Checklist

So. Time to discuss an uncomfortable subject. Hopefully, this will kick up enough controversy to get my blog some more hits.

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

The following post contains material of a potentially life-changing nature. Understanding what follows will make you a better person (mind, this is true understanding; just skimming it so that you can drop things in casual conversation and sound enlightened will not magically make you a better person). However, this is because it will constantly lurk in the back of your mind. Once read, it cannot be unread. So, red-pill-blue-pill time. Click this link and you will spend hours clicking on links until you forget I ever wrote this. Read on and you will understand your life and the people around you on a completely new level.

Seriously. This is the only warning you get. If you don't turn back now, you will not be able to turn back later. And once you understand, you will have to choose what you do with the information. You can use it to understand why certain things are the way they are. You can use it to try to change things from the way they are. You can, if you are a complete bastard, use it to keep things the way they are. But you will have to decide. Once you wake up, you cannot return to sleep.

Got it? This is information that can color the way you interact with everyone from now on. It is patterns that you will see in your day-to-day life. It is something that will always whisper in your ear, "This is a pattern that appears everywhere". It will, however, almost certainly not drive you mad. It might drive you sane. But it will always be with you, and you will always be able to see it no matter what you decide to do about it. And you must do something.

Given that you've read this far, I can assume that you've read my warning and decided you're fine with having your eyes opened. (If you're not, here's the link again.) Either that, or you skipped over my warning and deserve what's coming to you.

In either case, here goes. Last chance.

We (at least where I am; I can't speak for anyone else) like to think think that our society offers everyone a fair shake. That if you succeed, it's because you deserve it; if you fail, you also deserve it. That racism, sexism, and so forth are artifacts of the past, and that our enlightened society has moved on past them.

If only that were the case. See, the biases that made the Civil Rights Movement a necessity are still around, just in less overt and more insidious form. It's no longer okay in most circles to shout "N*****!" if you're white (see, my blog's autocensor caught it), but it is acceptable for politicians to make the entire point of their speeches about how "lazy" [code for "poor", and usually also "minority"] "welfare queens" [code for "single mothers"] need to "show some ambition" [code for "demonstrate upward mobility despite circumstances that make that... rather difficult... and will make it even more difficult if the politician in question gets their way"] and "find a man" [code for "become economically dependent on a man"]. It's no longer acceptable to say "b****es [self-censoring that time; the autocensor didn't catch it] need to get hitched and back in the kitchen", but it is acceptable to say that "career women" [a snarl word in some circles] "can't raise children properly without a man in the house" [code for "need to get married now, whether they like it or not", with an added implication of "and if they don't have kids, they need to get popping them out now"] and that "it is a scientifically documented fact" [actually, it isn't, at least not any more that it is that black people are less intelligent than white people; that is, the studies suggesting it have been pretty thoroughly debunked] that "women raise children better than men" [backhanded way of saying "if a woman is working and financially independent instead of cooking and cleaning, she's a bad mother"]. It is... not quite as unacceptable, but still up there... to say "d*** [autocensored] f******s [self-censored] need to be hung, every last one of those perverts up by the neck", but acceptable to lambast a "small, vocal minority" [as if that mattered, given that the entire point of a republic instead of a democracy is to protect against tyranny of the majority] for "demanding special rights" [that being, the right to marry, and the right to have it actually investigated if they get beaten to death], and to work references to pedophilia in somehow, as though anyone gay were a card-carrying member of NAMBLA (look it up. Actually, don't. Or at least just go with the South Park episode on it. And if you're at work or have kids around or you work at a daycare of something like that, have the Boss Key ready. If you don't know how to use the Boss Key or your workplace monitors internet use, wait until you're at home and the kid's asleep.)

And rhetoric influences reality. Racist rhetoric leads to racism, in the form of services to minority areas being cut before services to white areas. Sexist rhetoric leads to sexism, in the form of congressional committees dedicated to discussing women's health with a conspicuous absence of women.. And homophobic rhetoric leads to homophobia, in the form of "You perverts are going to hell! You ought to just send yourself there!" bullying. (These are not the only examples. Please don't yell at me in the comments about how I overlooked something. I haven't got enough space for a comprehensive list, and as examples, these suffice.)

In order to draw awareness to this, the idea of the Privilege Checklist was born. These are things that the group society holds to be "superior" don't have to think about (and usually don't), but that prop it up over the "inferior" group. This is an introductory (not comprehensive!) list of things that result from society's ingrained attitudes.

And here's my attempt. In American society, Christianity is the dominant religion*. The default person, the person that an American knows nothing about, is assumed to be white [not a minority], native-born [not an immigrant], male [not female or intersex], heterosexual [not gay, bisexual, or asexual], cisgender [not transgender or genderqueer], able-bodied [not physically disabled], neurotypical [not autistic, schizophrenic, or having any similar condition], adult [not a child or teenager]... and Christian. This naturally leads to certain attitudes in American society, both toward Christians, and toward anyone else.

And so, I present: The Christian* Privilege Checklist.

1. I can reliably find organizations dedicated to my faith. If I have reason to go to a place where clubs, social organizations, and the like gather, I can usually assume that at least one will be dedicated to my religion.
2. Advertising the tenets of my religion or groups associated with it is generally not considered a subject of controversy.
3. I can mention my faith in public without being called into question. If I wear clothing or jewelery that makes my religion obvious, I can typically assume that it will not be noticed or will be considered worthy of admiration.
4. My religion is treated as the default position. I only rarely need defend to others why I have chosen it, and may demand that they explain their own decisions.
5. As my religion is the default position, it is never assumed that I have only chosen it because of hatred of some person or religious figure or some personal trauma.
6. I am generally considered to be a good person. If I mention my religion to a stranger, I do not need to explain why I refrain from violent behavior, and I will not be asked.
7. The transgressions of extremists who share my faith do not reflect on me. If a Christian* bombs a public building or kills abortion doctors in the name of God, I do not need to worry about others assuming that I will do the same.
8. Elected officials are aware that I and people like me compose a majority. I can reliably expect that, while seeking office, any candidate will pander to me and people like me.
9. Most members of the government at least nominally share my faith. I can reliably expect that laws will be passed based on the principles of my religion.
10. No member of the government would dare to make a speech denying that I am a citizen.
11. Authority figures within my religion are likely to wield a disproportionate amount of lobbying power.
12. Laws are unlikely to be passed that discriminate against me on the basis of my religion, or that forbid me to practice my religion.
13. If I am in the military or otherwise reliant on use of public space, I can reasonably assume that accommodations and worship spaces and services for my religion are available.
14. If I am in the military, there are no common slogans denying my existence.
15. Especially if I am in the military, I can reasonably assume that most authority figures share my religion.
16. If I am in a theoretically secular hierarchical command structure, and I demonstrate open religious bigotry toward my subordinates, I will be considered a martyr if I am punished for it.
17. Government figures do not consider my religion grounds for suspicion, and do not monitor me based on my religion.
18. If I am a plaintiff in a case seeking to protect my religious rights, I can reasonably expect to be praised by the community.
19. If I am a plaintiff in a case seeking to protect my religious rights, and for whatever reason I am not anonymous (whether because my identity was leaked, because the judge revealed my identity, or because I have chosen to forgo anonymity), I am not likely to be harassed, threatened, or assaulted.
20. Challenging the tenets of my religion is more likely to be considered offensive than challenging the tenets of another.
21. In a number of venues, if I am debating a point of fact with someone else, the tenets of my religion are considered at least as valid a premise as established scientific theory or double-blind controlled experiment.
22. The tenets of my religion are well-known, and as such others only rarely impute beliefs to me with which I do not agree.
23. I am extremely unlikely ever to meet someone who considers my very existence offensive because of my religion.
24. If I take offense at a point stated by a person who is not an adherent of my religion, public opinion is likely to blame the other person, even if my points are equally or more offensive.
25. In media, most portrayals of my religion are accurate. I do not need to worry about basic tenets being misrepresented or the entire belief system being summarized as "a source of magic", "evil baby-sacrificing satanic demon-worship", "outright refusal to believe in anything special regardless of evidence", or any combination of the above.
26. In media, most portrayals of my religion are positive. If a media portrayal depicts negative or questionable elements, it is considered an act of war on my beliefs.
27. In entertainment media, my religion is often used as shorthand for indicating that a character has positive qualities. It is almost never used as shorthand for indicating negative qualities.
28. In entertainment media, characters sharing my religion are overwhelmingly portrayed as good.
29. In most news media, my religion is never shown in a negative light. If the medium in question has an opinion segment or regularly engages in propaganda, the medium will often bend the story to portray my religion in a positive light or as a "victim".
30. I can be reasonably certain that no one will call my patriotism into question based on my religion.
31. My religion is almost never used as a justification for asking what reason I have for living, or for asking why I do not commit suicide.
32. Public, and often private, events and services often offer space to my religion and no other. If I am denied this, or others are granted a space, public opinion will consider this a "repression" of my beliefs.
33. Many public oaths incorporate references to my religion and my religion alone.
34. My religion is never used as a slur, insult, or personal attack. 
35. Open expressions of my faith are only rarely vandalized because of the faith expressed.
36. I have the privilege of being unaware of my privilege.

*If you are not from a majority-Christian area, replace this with Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever is appropriate to where you live. Also, keep in mind that just because you are not a member of the majority religion does not mean that you do not benefit from any of these; it often seems (from an atheist standpoint, anyway) that religious folk have something of a tendency to say "You may not be one of us, but at least you're not one of those godless heathens".

The Bedlamite's Own Ethics I: Humanism

No evolution post this week because I have no idea what to write, and probably no game theory post because I realized I need to do more research into mixed strategy. Instead, you get some pure philosophy!

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

One of the problems that many people face is how to decide right and wrong in difficult situations. Many people want to do what is right, but how does one go about finding out what is right? For that matter, how can "right" be defined?

A number of people might claim that "right" stems from the dictates of some divine form. But, even if the divine source of those dictates could be proven, how does one determine that the deity's will is "right"? One could easily imagine a Gnostic-type Demiurge, an evil deity that gives evil commands. A standard cop-out is to claim that the deity, for one reason or another, must be good, but this returns to the original question: if the deity is good because that is its nature, there must be some definition of "good" beyond the deity; while if the deity is good because it defines good, then "good" is meaningless; a Demiurge could define "good" in an utterly evil way.

One solution is to say that "right" and "wrong" are purely human inventions. The universe does not possess such traits, except as far as humans (and possibly other sapiences) place them upon it. This does not, of course, mean that such terms are pointless; a toaster or a computer is a human invention, but is still useful. Similarly, "right" and "wrong" are useful terms for both individuals and society, and when clearly defined even more so.

Of course, a human invention must serve human goals. And morality more so: a morality invented by humans that opposes human interests has failed. So, whatever morality is, it must support the goals of humans or sapiences in general, and concordance with nature or the whims of a deity must be incedental.

<<First in Topic! | The Bedlamite's Own Ethics | Morality as Oppression>>