Politics at Geek Skillz http://www.geekskillz.com/tags/48 Articles tagged with Politics at Geek Skillz. Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:41:00 EST Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:41:00 EST en-us Persuasive Whipping-Up Rhetoric http://www.geekskillz.com/articles/persuasive-whipping-up-rhetoric Politics, Rants

"So, let's talk instead about the flexibility of language, linguistic elasticity, if you like." "We are defined by our language, if you will."

If our language defines us, then there's been a lot of people tinkering with definitions. Camps are being created, teams forming up, and new cults being created where there shouldn't be. The new cult of Darwinism is possibly the fastest growing cult today. Well, it would be if the term Darwinism was meaningful, and if you ignore the fact that it's a cult created by those who don't subscribe to whatever that cult is supposed to preach. Imagine you wear blue t-shirts all the time, and I pronounce that you are a Bluist. You and I are instantly divided and basic psychology takes over from there. You may say, "What the heck is a Bluist?", but it doesn't matter. You're now a Bluist. Being on different teams, we begin to generalize about each other. Bluists don't like salad, Bluists always lose at video games, Bluists become enraged at the sight of the colour red, and so on. It becomes easy to act without compassion towards you, all because I put you in an arbitrary team.

And "Darwinism" is an arbitrary team. In contrast, I think that "Social Darwinism" definitely has meaning. People who condone genocide are Social Darwinists, but it's more meaningful to say that they condone genocide instead of using an obscure label, isn't it? As far as I can tell, a Darwinist is someone who has taken a biology class or two, and passed! If you understand evolution and accept the evidence for how it happens, then you may find yourself labelled a Darwinist. In truth, you aren't a Darwinist, you're someone who can evaluate and learn from evidence. The term suggests that Charles Darwin was the one and only source for evolution and its evidence. It ignores the countless other scientists who contribute to this single field of science. But if you acknowledge their work, then you lessen the visceral impact of the "Darwinist" tag. The label implies that one follows the words of only one man, to the letter, and without question, which is not a very good way to live. Do Darwinists think this way? Trick question! There's no such thing as Darwinism.

Then why is it acceptable to label people as Darwinists? It's not just religious fundamentalists that use the term, you might even hear scientists referring to themselves as Darwinists! Why?? Shouldn't we also hear about people who believe in gravity as Newtonists or Gravitivists, from the cults of Newtonism or Gravitivism? People who believe in chemistry as believers of Chemistrism? Anyone who designs a nuclear reactor must surely worship at the altar of Physicism. It all sounds so mystical, it's easy to laugh at it! But that's the point, I guess.

If you can't argue with someone based on the content of their message, then you can use cheap tricks to make them look silly. It can be difficult to refute someone who is credited as being a Biologist. Call him a Darwinist and suddenly he seems like a complete loon! Don't agree with a Physicist? Call him a believer of Gravitivism. Oh what a quack!

So when the so-called Darwinists embrace the title and start using it themselves, what's going on? I think it's the same thing that gay people did with the words queer, dyke, and so on. What's the name of the annual lesbian parade in Toronto? The Dyke March! What used to be a hateful word has been completely neutered by those who it was intended to hurt. Take ownership of the labels and they will gradually lose their hateful meanings. We are defined by our language, so we must try to control how language is used about ourselves. Is Darwinist an inherently hateful term? I guess not. It can be understood to mean that Darwin was a great man worthy of respect. Is it so bad for biologists to adopt the name? It's certainly more friendly than most racist terms! The strategy to disarm the word is probably a good one, as long as it is eventually abolished.

When I read news, blogs, articles, tweets, and hand-outs from people on the street, labels are red flags. When someone uses cheap labels to reference a person or group, you know there's something fishy about the author's motivation. Leftist (Leftism?), Neo-Cons (New Conservatives, because old is comfortable and new is scary), New Atheist (disbelieving for the second time?), Marxist (because we all know socialism is evil), Capitalist (only fools make money), Abortionist (who surely do it for fun), etc. These labels are smoke and mirrors used by lazy people who would rather not address underlying issues. Call someone a Marxist or Capitalist if you don't want to actually talk about public policy issues.

If you can't write about something without resorting to these manipulative, emotional words, then you probably don't have anything to say.

Now I must go to the gym to lift weights in an effort to make fools of those stupid Gravitivists! If the weights are so heavy, why do they go UP? Haha!
]]> Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:41:00 EST http://www.geekskillz.com/articles/persuasive-whipping-up-rhetoric CBC Insults Green Voters http://www.geekskillz.com/articles/cbc-insults-green-voters Politics, Rants

Geeks hate nothing more than being ignorantly labeled by stuffy conservatives.

It’s election night in Ontario, and Canadian media, especially the publicly-funded CBC, has done a fine job of insulting many of us voters.

During some elections, I turn into a political geek, watching the debates and forums on TVO, and reading about party policies. I have been impressed by the Green Party of Canada’s economic and social policies, both federally and provincially. They appeal to nerds like me by using lots of numbers, referring to studies, and talking about new and emerging technologies. I guess that’s part of their problem. They use too many facts and figures, which bore and confuse most apathetic voters. It’s much better to follow the Liberal and Conservative tactics of talking out the side of your mouth, blowing smoke out your ass, calling other people bad names, and waving your hands like a Jedi.

The Ontario Greens, who got only 2.8% of the vote in the previous election, got over 8% of the popular vote this time. That amounts to a big fat zero wins, but it’s a huge gain. Nevertheless, the CBC is still dismissing all Green votes as “protest votes”. Specifically, those were the words of the host Diana Swain and TV personality Allen Gregg, who didn’t give reasons for their analysis. Why must votes for the Green Party be protest votes?

It’s insulting, ignorant, patronizing, deceptive, and disparaging.

Those are the nicest words I can think of for the CBC tonight. They are trying to vilify those of us who vote Green, as if we are trying to throw away our votes and abuse our democratic system, the same democratic system that gave the Liberals a huge majority government while more than 60% of voters voted against them.

I voted Green because I did a lot of research and took interest in the economic policies and technologies that the party platform puts forward, and because I support their progressive social policies as well. My decision was not ignorant, emotional, or flippant. I want our economy and society to be built on cleaner industries, our air cleaner, our public transit systems more useful, and our media less manipulative. Ok, the Greens can’t do anything about that last issue...]]> Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:10:00 EST http://www.geekskillz.com/articles/cbc-insults-green-voters YouTube vs. Canadian Cops http://www.geekskillz.com/articles/youtube-vs-canadian-cops Evidence, Politics, Rants, Web

The Internet proved its worth this week. I have to write about this even if it doesn't fit with the theme of this blog, because it's such a shocking display of a corrupt government at work. Rarely do I find photographs and video that completely convinces me of something like this evidence has convinced me.

In Montebello, Quebec last weekend, the leaders of Canada, USA, and Mexico were meeting to discuss whatever it is they discuss. We're not allowed to know what they talked about because... well, I don't know. Anyway, protesters flocked to this event, threatening to raise important issues and cause debate.

Undercover police were caught by a union leader trying to incite violence among peaceful protesters. A camera filmed it all, and cameras flashed. The police should really have a look at the digital cameras available these days. Did you know that they can take extremely high resolution pictures that capture every detail? You can take hundreds of pictures and look through them for evidence later. Or just post them on the internet and let others find the evidence for you.

Here's the YouTube video that is now being viewed around the globe:


"Plan B! Arrest Us!"


Read the news report by the CBC that discusses the evidence.
View the photos at the CUPE website.


This was clearly a botched police operation. Soon after the dirty cops were identified and called out by the protesters, they approached the line of riot cops seeking help. They were taken to the other side of the riot cops' shields, and gently arrested. They remained masked the entire time. As if it wasn't clear enough that they were cops, the riot cops made the mistake of putting them on the ground, which allowed all the digital cameras to get high resolution images of the pigs' boots and the riot cops boots. All the boots had identical Vibram soles. The failed instigators clumsily put duct tape on their boots to try to disguise them, but didn't cover the bottoms where the boots can be identified.

Thanks to social news sites like digg, the story is not just causing a stir in Canada. (Can Canadians be stirred by anything?) The story, pictures, and video are being viewed worldwide. This certainly isn't the first time that police have been accused of inciting violence to defame protesters, but the evidence here is incontrovertible, in my opinion: The way the dirty cops fled from the protesters, practically begging the riot cops to rescue them. There were no arrests made or charges laid. The identities of the three men has not been released. Their masks were never removed. The standard issue Vibram police boots. The dissemination of information across the internet was swift. It's too late for a government cover-up this time.

It's disgusting and outrageous. Where did the orders come from for this repulsive mission? To know for certain that our police are using violent tactics against peaceful civilians is hard to accept. It's the worst kind of abuse of power.

Sadly, I think this event will be forgotten by next week.

Update Aug. 24, 2007

Looks like the issue got enough attention that it got a response from the federal government. Time to see some legislation to keep the police in check.


Time to "police the police"

]]> Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:01:00 EST http://www.geekskillz.com/articles/youtube-vs-canadian-cops