Sunday, July 30, 2006

Not having your cake, and eating it too

If you dip at any depth into the sludgy swamp of diversity literature, rather than just casting the occasional scornful, contorted grimace at the iridescent shining on its fetid surface, you'll come across the phrase "social construction."

Diversiphiles deny that race is a scientifically valid concept. That is, genetic variation within racial groups is just as great as genetic variation between racial groups, so the whole idea of a genetic basis for race is wrong.

Race has no genetic component?...which explains why white people often give birth to black infants with epicanthic eye folds, and a predisposition to Tay Sachs disease.

But I don't want to dispute the underlying science here--maybe race isn't a valid genetic concept.

Diversiphiles maintain this. There is no genetic basis for race. Therefore, any distinction based on race is a distinction based on a fiction. However, diversiphiles themselves wish to make numerous distinctions based on race--they realize they need the concept of race to enact their favored brand of identity politics.

Thus, social construction. Social construction holds that reality is socially constructed. That is, what is subjectively true among a group of people attains an objective reality for that group--or is just as good as objectivley true. Translated: if enough people believe something, then its true. That is social construction.

Now, the difficulty I come up against in criticizing this view is that I don't know how deeply diversiphiles hold it.

And I'm not just talking about the peculiar chameleon quality of diversity, quickly changing shades in response to attacks from one direction, and then changing back again to respond to attacks from anohter direction. On one level, diversity simply takes whatever premises are necessary to further its pre-assumed multiculturalist goals. So, in this way, diversiphiles are social constructionists when this helps them fend off attacks from detractors, and not social constructionists when being so constitutes a liability.

But, as I said, it is not this chamelon-quality that I'm worried about right now concerning diversity's relation to social constructionism. That's just a general worry. Rather, I wander: are they saying that the truth is socially constructed, or only that we should treat as the truth whatever is the consensus of a certain people?

But where diversity sits is a vital concern. Social constructionism, which diversity cheerfully and unreflectively assumes, is a very extreme and nihilistic epistemological position--or at least it seems so to me. If truth is socially constructed then anything believed by enough people is true. The tools of truth cease to be quality of rational argument (except insofar as this can be used in favor of a preconceived conclusion, and with an ironic disregard for capital-t "Truth") and become rhetoric, sophistry, propaganda.

It may be that social construction is a valid philosophical hypothesis--it was discussed very briefly in an epistemology class I took--but it is a controversial one, and needs to be argued, not assumed. Or, it it is assumed, reservations need to be noted and the fact of its assumption, highlighted. it shouldn't be assumed under dark of night, casually, stealthily, like its no-big-deal.

Of course, diversiphiles could just be making the commonsense observation that race is believed by a lot of people and therefore...race is believed by a lot of people. It will be treated as a truth claim in the name of neutrality so we can proceed with the business of analyzing the idea of race as such. But, if this is the case, if it is treated provisionally as true for methodological reasons, then diversiphiles have lost the ground for making positive arguments that race is not genetic. Instead, as long as enough people believe that race is genetic, then this becomes the socially constructed truth.

However, as diversiphiles argue against some social conceptions of race, while arguing for others, the nonneutrality and partisan nature of diversity is evident. Diversiphiles, since they advance a particular view of the social construction of race above others aside from what people actually believe (in a sense, telling people what people believe) they are engaged in the activity of creating "truth." Diversity, on this interpretation, is the ideological re-encoding of the concept of race. It is necessarily partisan and necessarily invested in perpetuating the concept of race, rather than dissolving it.

It shouldn't come as any surprsie that diversity is inherently ideological. And, this is not necessarily a problem. However, given its ideological nature, it should be acknowledge as such, and not passed off as the neutral, God's-honest-truth, to naive, incoming freshman, who are forced into taking some type of diversity class. Its biases need to be acknowledged.

Social constructionism. Through it, diversiphiles can deny the empirical existence of race and then re-encode the concept with whatever content they think will aid in racial "liberation"--content which, as has been observed, is contrary to libertarian assumptions of individuality and natural right assumptions of group-transcending objectively valid, universal rights.


The social constructionism of diversity is like denying that the cake exists, but then insisting that we have to eat it anyways.

Kudos on another level of incoherency, diversity--your po-mo acrobatics never cease to amaze me.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

The post wherein I take a consciously contrarian stance in order to challenge the bourgeoisie assumptions of the immiserated masses

Flies most certainly DO NOT vomit every time they land. This little bit of elementary school playground lore is a patent untruth. Need I remind you that “every time” is a categorical statement? Am I to believe that even when a fly alights for the briefest fraction of a second on a random surface, it takes the time to upchuck and then rechuck?

Impossible, I say. Impossible. When a fly is circling around the same area, say, when it lands repeatedly on your twitching hand, is it really vomiting EVERY time?

Flies may vomit SOMETIMES, a minority of the times, when they land, but certainly not EVERY TIME. Such is a blatant untruth.

Saturday, July 15, 2006

The Daily Mail: "Superman star has tantrum after make-up made him look 'wimpy'"

"Basically there was a problem with the shade of his tinted moisturiser - it was slightly lighter than his natural skin tone

Okay, that's an understandable problem. Some Hollywood make-up artist prissyed him all up and, the symbol of manly virility he is, the Man of Steel had to take drastic action to re-assert his challenged, testosterone-drenched MANLINESS. So, what'd he do? Kill the make-up artist with a spear fashioned from a nearby table leg, and then drink hydraulic oil from his hollowed out skull? Challenge a random stranger to a longsword fight amid sprawling, medieval ruins? Juggle rhinocerii? No--

- so he asked for an expensive fake tan moisturiser to be used instead.

"A waterproof, gradual build one which develops over time was eventually found and has given him a natural, all-over golden glow.

Natural, all-over golden glow? How is glowing gold "natural"? Have you ever seen a glowing, gold person you would classify as natural? Scratch that--have you ever seen a man cover himself in glowing gold make-up, thus hoping to evade the perception of 'wimpiness', that you would call natural?

Here's a cover-blurb for the inevitable DVD release of Superman: "I am officially travelling back in time to prevent myself from seeing this movie. Screw Ebert, there's only room in this time machine for one."

Nothing can stop me--except future me.

Friday, July 14, 2006

We regret the error

In a post a long while back I said, or at least insinuated, that the Black Student Union is exclusively black. Actually (and somewhat non-eponymously you could say) it isn't. They do allow white membership, I believe.

However, I don't believe this affects my original point, which I assume was something along the lines of "Diversity...yeeeaARARRGHGHHH."

update: Although I probably don't need to point out to regular readers of this blog that opposition to Diversity qua multiculturalist ideology is not intrinsically racist, I found a helpful analogy to explain this distinction to those who don't see it:

Being opposed to "Diversity" no more means you are opposed to true difference than being opposed to libertarianism means you are opposed to liberty. Rather, it may just be that one feels that liberty can be better expressed through the competing traditions of liberalism or conservatism. So, if you hate libertarians it doesn’t mean you hate liberty, it just means your sane.

Similarly, being opposed to "Diversity" simply means being opposed to the ideological manifestation claiming that name, which is currently tapeworming its way through higher-ed into the society at large.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

"Wait, maybe LaHaye and Jenkins were right after all"--or, How I solved two mysteries at once, to everyone's satisfaction

(update: Uh, read preceeding post first and this will make slightly more sense. Slightly).

Maybe the rapture occured and Natalie Holloway was the only one to be saved? Yeah, that's it! This way, LaHaye and Jenkins can be right, and I still get to have my apocalypse in the Middle East--everyone's a winner!

Maybe it sounds far-fetched, but hey, it makes as much sense as the rest of the sh-- they're peddling, those fece-mongers. THAT'S RIGHT GRETA--I SAID IT.

Apocalypse Now...or Later?

Wait...this isn't the way LaHaye and Jenkins said it would go down..."Left Behind" my ass:

Israel imposed a full naval blockade on Lebanon on Thursday and put Beirut’s international airport out of commission, and the militant group Hezbollah loosed a hail of rockets and mortar shells that killed two Israelis and sent thousands into bomb shelters.


Hezbollah fired more than 120 Katyusha rockets and mortar shells into Israel on Thursday, Israeli officials said. The barrage killed a woman on her balcony in Nahariya and a man in Safed, and wounded more than 100 other Israelis in some 20 towns and villages, including Haifa, Safed and Carmiel. Israeli officials said it was the first time Haifa had been hit by rocket fire from Lebanon.

That's not the worst part...the worst part is, it appears that Iran may have fired missiles at Haifa as well. And, if not, still:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday an Israeli strike on Syria would be considered an attack on the whole Islamic world that would bring a "fierce response", state television reported.
Firing missiles at Israel isn't so much a casus belli as it is a started belli.

Well, bright side, I guess we're approaching an answer to the Iranian question--and that answer appears to be another question: What Iran? This could get ugly. Quick.

See here for regularly updated live-blogging of the crisis. Me? I've still gotta finish my "Things to do before I'm drafted because we invaded FRIGGING Iran" list. Basically its just a list of names for potential ska bands and crudely drawn sketches of perpetual motion machines.

Sigh. Maybe this whole situation isn't as bad as I'm making it out to be--things rarely are. But, man, that whole area is a gasoline-soaked tinderkeg, and Hizbollah/Iran aren't the people you want stumbling around it, smoking a big wad of hashhish.

Thursday, July 06, 2006

There's a "North" Korea?

So, apparently Kim Jong Il can’t keep his missile up for over thirty seconds—sounds like a personal problem to me.

Rush played a clip of Madeleine Albright on Larry King where she warned against making fun of Li’l Kim because…I don’t know, she thinks he’s hot? Anyways, it may surprise you to hear that I disagree. In fact, I recommend a steady stream of special ops mockery aimed at Kim “is a girl’s name” Jong Il.

Is this the wisest course of action? I don’t know, but it is the least gay, and that has to count for something. Plus, when they make the movie about this whole NoKo affair, trust me, its gonna be way cooler my way—America standing astride Southeast Asia, dropping yo mamas on NoKo, roasting Kim like a nicely plumped dog, letting extreme famine jokes ripple through the public consciousness.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Okay, help me out here

Star Hollywood actor-activists including Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and anti-war campaigners led by bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan plan to launch a hunger strike, demanding the immediate return of US troops from Iraq

…so is this the punch line, or the joke itself? I mean, on one level, there's not much left I can do but point and laugh. But on another level, it just sounds like the set-up for a HIL-arious roast of Hollywood egotism and anti-war rigtheousness.


Cdestruction exclusive!!!: Reached for comment, here was Michael Moore’s reaction.

A Not-So-Super Review

So, I saw the Superman movie today. A tour de force of utter banality. It wasn’t bad per se—the movie was well done technically and such—it was just boring. Incredibly boring. Man-of-steel-eating-a-large-bowl-of-pistachios-whilst-watching-a-Discovery-channel-special-on-leopard-seals boring.

And it was also just completely implausible. I don’t mean the part where Superman lifts a small continent into space—that was as real as one of Dave Chapelle’s trenchant comedic observations about white people. No, what beggars belief—and I know I’m not the first to point this out—is the inability of Louis Lane and the rest of the world to realize that Clark Kent is Superman. Seriously, all he does is take off his glasses, don a blue tight-suit and put a playful twirl in his bangs. The only explanation I’ve been able to come up with is that the world is too busy staring at the Man of Steel’s super-crouch to even chance a glimpse at his face. I half expected Superman to say “Hey, Lex Luther, I’m up here.”

But with Superman, its best not to gaze too deep. Because then you realize he’s just another Don Juan homewrecker from Krypton, who knocked up Louis Lane out-of-wedlock and has come back to seduce her from her faithful, caring fiancé, Richard. Plus, to give you another completely out-of-context example of Superman’s true nature, he sneaks into a boy’s room at night and kisses him. Seriously.

Like I said, the movie isn’t horrible—just horribly boring. The movie could’ve been a lot shorter—just start with the scene where Superman gets shot with a pistol, point blank, in the eye, and then…curtain. That I would’ve given, like, a frickin’ nebulae of stars. As it is, however, I rank it one dying Krypton, and a half eaten ham on white, no mayo, no mustard.

Just ham...plain old ham.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Blogging tip #44

When bumming for something to write about (no, I don't know why I used the word "bumming" instead of a relevant verb), simply post a random link, and snarky-sarcastic message in all-caps. The random nature of the link will keep the proles thinking that you troll blogs all day long, searching for the perfect link. The all-caps, that's a crutch you can use when you can't come up with an actual joke, or to indicate, in a none to subtle way, that you are ironic and hip. That is, that are IRONIC AND HIP.

So, example: