CARLY McKINNEY IS A ROLE MODEL...

     I saw this post on Gawker the other day. It's about a 23 year old math teacher in Colorado who has since been put on "administrative leave" for posts made on a now defunct Twitter account showing herself in various states of PG-13 undress, calling her students jailbait, and implying drug use.

Carly McKinney : Yes, I am totally adding these images in a nakedly desperate attempt to get my stupid blog to show up and be visited via a Google Image Search

     Now I personally do not know if any of the aforementioned tweets have been made on school time. If that's the case, I can understand any suspension and whatnot as I've argued in the past.  For the sake of this opinion, I will be assuming that they were not posted during school hours or using school computers and done instead, on her own time (even though under current law, my arguments do not matter according to the NEA - all that needs to happen is for the activity to be declared disruptive to the school: a judgement I'm sure will be found in a totally fair and unbiased manner).

     Comments in these articles inevitably point to Ms. McKinney deserving to be fired for failing to be a role model. (examples from the Gawker link)

"You can be a party girl famewhore, or you can be a schoolteacher. You cannot be both."

(commenter: Dismissed)

[sarcastically] "Yeah, she should really be rewarded for showing the judgement of a 14 year old while theoretically helping teach people's kids how to get on with life. Thanks for your insightful comment."

(commenter: Paul Tatara)

"...I know it is not right, but if you work in certain jobs, you simply can not behave this way online..."

(commenter: TuMadreTanbien)

"Idiot. You can't do that shit when you're a teacher, full stop. This woman grew up breathing social media if she's anything like other millennials, so there is absolutely no reason she should think any of that is okay. If you're a teacher (or any number of other public positions), you don't post this stuff online."

(commenter: GMaMazur)

     You can search articles for comments defending her: they're not hard to find. I will be offering my own defenses,  however, and these defenses will go beyond the obvious "slut shaming" thing needing to stop as it has happened inexcusably before and will continue to happen again. Because seriously, when was the last time a man was fired for being an underwear model or in porn?
     A quick Google search yielded nothing so the slant is fairly obvious.
     The teachers linked in the two articles not only did nothing illegal, but even if it's still technically conduct "unbecoming of a teacher" (how 19th century does that sound?), their photos and videos were made prior to them even becoming teachers!
     And it is that latter concept which factors into my defense...

     Why is Carly McKinney a role model of sorts? Because she demonstrates conclusively (at least up until the point of this media gossip-storm) that perfection is not required for success in life; that yes, you can grow up and with proper education, get a professional career regardless of one's past.
      It's the idea that you can still get ahead despite one's "youthful indiscretions". It's this idea that teachers can still be people too and not have to be held to these bizarre Victorian standards of stainlessness in order to be given the authority to teach our children.

Being hot should never be a terminable offense for a woman

     Because seriously, what are supposed to tell the stoners, the delinquents, the freaks and other perpetrators of "youthful indiscretions" in high school? That they can never amount to anything because they will be barred from any and all professions regardless of later academic achievement because society will refuse to acknowledge that they can change or gasp! actually be competent despite these faults?
     What are we supposed to tell the people who have prostituted themselves, performed in pornography, supported a position publicly that is unpopular, been to prison, and others whether legal or illegal? That despite this being a Christian nation, forgiveness will never come unto them? That they will be considered fuck-ups forever with no possibility for redemption or for simply letting bygones be bygones?

     That's the way it goes right now and probably will continue to go for the foreseeable future ever since background checks became so ludicrously easy to perform. And why should it be that way? Why should this system of intolerance and bullying - and yes, it is bullying...bullying in its most insidious degree as anyone who has ever been effectively shunned will recognize - be allowed to persist?
      And I don't care if the perpetrator was too young to know better or could have known better or should have known better...it doesn't matter. This gossip whose purpose is to ruin the lives of those who are either trying to make a better one for themselves or who are able to function competently in their jobs/professions despite their vices is entirely conducive to fostering hopelessness.
     Great...you made a mistake: now you've got to pay for it forever.
     Great...you've done something perfectly legal that petty people frown upon: now you've got to pay for it forever.
     Great...there's no point in working hard to achieve: no one will ever let you.
     Great...now you can either own up to your past and fail forever or you can hide it, living in perpetual terror that it will one day resurface and be used against you.

     What a shitty system.

Once a topless model, always a topless model...because it makes sense to do that to people

     If it were in my power, I would forgive Carly McKinney, reinstating her with pay immediately and without comment for actions both real and alleged portrayed by her online while off the clock. I would openly and hostilely condemn those who have maligned her for daring to have a life outside of her profession. I would condemn them for being busybodies and gossips. I would condemn those who insist upon such irresponsibly unrealistic purity standards for which a teacher may be judged fit for teaching.
     I would forgive those like Stacie Halas and Tiffani Webb, immediately reinstating them and without comment for actions performed by them PRIOR to becoming teachers and even if they were teachers at the time, those same actions were TOTALLY FUCKING LEGAL (and in the case of Stacie Halas for certain, also performed under a pseudonym) and thus would not be subject to firing if they were doing this stuff now (though if they did it in the school, yes...another matter entirely). I would condemn those that would judge these women unfit for duty on the basis of actions performed which were unrelated to their professions. I would condemn them for their inability to move on from their past lives. I would condemn them for holding these women guilty for their non-professional conduct. I would remind them that none of those doing the condemning and shaming are themselves without sin and that if held to their own standards, all of them would almost certainly be out of work.
     There are plenty of reasons to fire a teacher (or any professional): these are not any of them.

Because this clearly happened in the classroom

     No, if these women are to be judged, they are to be judged by the quality of their work in the classroom and their conduct therein. They should be judged by their professionalism as directly related their career. If Carly McKinney does an illegal drug in the classroom (or on school grounds): fired. If Stacie Halas films or her showcases her porn scenes in the classroom: fired. If Tiffani Webb models or has students take pictures of her in lingerie in the classroom: fired.

     But if they've done, they do or if they even consider doing any of these things (and more) on their own time, tell me again why it matters?

Pictured: personal time

      We tell people that life is about making mistakes and learning from them. But increasingly society makes life for people and especially professionals just so terrifyingly unforgiving. Yes, I am most certainly dreaming the dream of the idealist...but I want to live in a world where people are judged for their skills in life and not for their past lives.

     It really would only be fair.

As it should be...

ADDENDUM: Turns out a month before I had posted this, the Huffington Post reported that Stacie Halas, the teacher who PRIOR TO BECOMING A TEACHER performed in adult films had lost her appeal to get her job back and create a legal precedent that one's past is not allowed to infringe upon their present. Remember kids, in the eyes of the law: once a fuck up, always a fuck up. No forgiveness. No hope.

No forgiveness. No hope.

THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE...TO THINK WE'RE ALL EQUAL

     I might come back to this another day, but I think I finally understand why it is I just don't like this (usually liberal) philosophy of accepting diversity in all its forms be it lifestyles, religion, clothing, cultures, etc. etc.
     I think it's because I can't respect that. I like the idea of there being a line which cannot be crossed under threat of ostracism. I need people to be intolerant of some things at some point and no, being intolerant of intolerance doesn't count.

     It's like, you can't love or accept everything. The logic may be faulty but it would seem to follow that if you love everything, you also love nothing. The idea being that nothing is necessarily a part of everything so therefore...well, I'm assuming you follow me. It is only through selectivity that one can appreciate an emotion or attitude. This idea that we can't call a culture or religion or lifestyle or attitude wrong by our measure - no means an objective thing - feels antithetical to the human experience.
     Our minds...well, my mind at least - I shouldn't vouch for others - insists upon ideas like this/that; here/there; inside/outside; warmer/colder; higher/lower; us/them; you/me; etc. In other words, sides or groups or any kind of separation. They can overlap like Venn diagrams, but the need for outliers is insisted upon.

     Perhaps that insistence is the force of evolution itself; competition bred of limited time, space, and resources so accepting all becomes an impossibility because there simply isn't enough to go around.
     Or maybe it's just I don't like the idea of someone saying you can't think certain things. Maybe I can't act upon them, but don't tell me I can't think them. I don't know...

      It just feels wrong to put forth this idea that "it's all good" when no, some things are "bad".


"Crash Your Party" by Karmin

TRUST IN GOD, BUT TIE UP YOUR CAMEL...

TRIGGER WARNING:

Below the cut I will be critiquing a cartoon which contains information about sexual assault and/or violence which may be triggering to survivors. The descriptions themselves will not be graphic but I thought I should include this warning as a courtesy.

LIBERAL TRIAGE

      I just want to state for the record that I actually don't care about what these girls have done nor do I have any personal opposition to it because I'm really not one to stand in the way of other people's fun provided it synchronizes with the general dictum: "Your freedom to swing your arm ends where the other fellow's nose begins." That having been said, I like the moral conundrum it puts upon liberals...

      Not too long ago, the New York Times ran an article about Muslim girls in Hamtramck, Michigan and their desire to have a prom of their own "...which conforms to religious beliefs forbidding dating, dancing with boys or appearing without a head scarf in front of males." Now while I personally feel it is customs such as these that have been hampering strict Muslims around the world from properly assimilating into their adopted lands (and pretty much any overbearing religion...I don't need to pick on Muslims here seeing as how ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and probably Mormons and Scientologists too, would also qualify), that's not what I found so amusing about this all-girls prom.

      For me, the prom posed a lose-lose scenario for liberals who praise diversity and denounce bigotry and sexism and such among their many other stances. I mean, as a liberal, can one really support this all-girl prom being held? It wasn't being paid for by the school, but through fund-raising on the girls' parts, so I don't want to hear that it was a private affair arguments otherwise why don't liberals in general denounce others for protesting the practices of the Boy Scouts who find homosexuality to be contrary to the principles they espouse? Why would they clamor for women's rights in countries under Islamic or Shariah Law when those laws clearly permit such heinous practices?

      On the surface, the prom is openly sexist: no boys allowed. Don't tell me because it's girls-only that it's okay especially with the annual brouhaha over Augusta National's policy on not permitting women to join their organization (among other things). If it's wrong for a golf club to forbid women members for no other reason than they are women, then how is it right to permit a prom which forbids participation from men for no other reason than they are men?

       But if you oppose these girls having their prom due to its sexist nature, you are then effectively preventing them from expressing themselves in the name of their religion which goes against the liberal creed of espousing diversity. It amuses me because there really is no answer which does not produce hypocrisy. I love it.

       It's liberal triage. What do you do? I guess if it were me, I would have to oppose the prom on the grounds that women's rights would supercede religious rights seeing as how being a woman is not a choice whereas being a Muslim (or Christian or Jew or Hindu or Shintoist or Atheist or etc.) is.

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XII

      Sometimes I wonder if we just have it backwards in certain aspects of our lives and I wonder if what is impeding the acceptance of outlier groups in our society is that backwardness. I think of a speech given by Daniel Webster in 1830, an excerpt here (click on the quoted text to read the full speech if you so desire):

"I have not allowed myself, Sir, to look beyond the Union, to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counselor in the affairs of this government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all it sample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American heart, - Liberty and Union, now and for ever, one and inseparable!"

     This idea that we must first unite under a banner and then attend to freedom is an interesting one nor can I say that I disagree with it. It had me thinking about "hyphenated Americans" - y'know, sub-groups of this country variously identifying themselves as African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Muslim-Americans, Asian-Americans and so forth. Usually it's an ethnic or racial identifier but occasionally examples of religion or other minority-type groups will appear. There's nothing preventing the idea of Gay-Americans (or Lesbian-Americans), Disabled-Americans, etc. from existing. Is part of the problem with acceptance one of language?

     The thing about identifying yourself as a hyphenated American is that you're putting your sub-identity ahead of the group identity. Just as we are more willing to aid a friend rather than a stranger, might we not be more willing to aid our countrymen over that of "just anybody"? Personally, I don't accept the appeal to humanity argument. I really don't give a fuck that you're a human being. When all our accoutrements are stripped away, we are animals in competition with one and other over limited resources...just like all other life. Appealing to humanity is idiotic at best and a huge invitation to accusations of hypocrisy at worst. There are no human rights, there are only sovereign rights. Anyone advancing the idea that there's some sort of supernational set of rights and privileges afforded us by virtue of having been born homo sapiens is at best counterproductive and more likely a fucking idiot. Are you not a man? Yes, yes you are but when you are "but a man", you are my competition; my competition for food, territory, miscellaneous resources, and mates. When you are "but a man", your analogue is that of a paramecium, a single-celled organism unto itself...for itself.

      But what if we are banded together, having formed a tribe or community? Now, we work together for food, territory, resources, and mates...sharing amongst ourselves as a kind of multicellular superorganism. Together we stand a greater chance for success than we ever did separately. And we work together as a tribe in order to benefit the tribe because we are all relying on each other for our success. But tribalism has its limits and I think we've found that limit at the national level. At best, I could see humanity allying at the continental level, but no further. The planetary scale? Never (not without an existential threat at least and even then, I'm not so sure but regardless, it would be a temporary coming-together).

      But here at our national level and in our national discourse there are many minority groups fighting for recognition and privileges belonging to them as citizens of the United States of America. I have no problem with this, not in the slightest so long as their ambitions do not endanger the integrity of this nation, who are we not to grant them/enforce them? However, I think the arguments as currently presented, do not lend themselves to acceptance.

      A big, still fairly oppressed group in this country are the homosexuals and what I'm saying in this poorly constructed argument is why would, or even should, Americans care about the plight of homosexuals as a general subject? America, despite occasional boasts to the contrary, in no way, shape, or form controls the world (nor should it aspire to). There are many homosexuals beyond the borders of the United States. Why are they of our concern? They're not, nor should they be. I think that asking that they be of our concern is a problem with their cause.

     But what if the cause were limited to not to Homosexual-Americans, but to American homosexuals (or to put it another way still, Americans who are homosexual)? What if the argument were phrased Constitutionally rather than humanitarianly? It's an Us vs. Them argument and if you're phrasing your argument so as to be one of "Them", why would I be interested in what you have to say? Why would I be interested in helping a group which identifies themselves separately from the main one? Why would I be interested in helping a group presenting itself as competition? Why would I want to help a group seemingly placing its needs above that of the nation's? Why would I wish to help a group desiring its Liberty first before coming together as fellow countrymen? Do not come to me as a man but as a citizen of the United States of America. Presenting a problem as a humanitarian issue is the same as not having presented it at all. The United States looks after its citizens, not humanity as a whole. Make it out to be a citizens' issue, not a personal one.

       Convince me that I am your brother, and I shall stand beside you; convince me that you are an other, and I must stand against you.

YOUR AD HERE (unless you're...)

      I'm gonna start with some quotes by OpieRadio on Twitter in response to people's responses to what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke regarding recent changes in the law which now require health insurance to cover birth control with no co-pay:

WHAT'S WRONG WITH PEOPLE? Like it or not Rush Limbaugh should be allowed to say what he did on the radio in AMERICA!

[Re:] Rush Limbaugh - Let me dumb it down for some of you. I don't want the GOVERNMENT or ADVERTISERS to control what I listen to on the radio

A lot of you dopes are confused by 'I'm offended' AND 'I'm offended and NO ONE should be allowed to listen to him' THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE

      A common response to the first sentiment is (and I'll quote an actual comment): "Of course he has the right [to say what he did]. And thousands of people have the right to say, 'You're an ass, we won't do business with your advertisers.'" I take issue with that.

      What do advertisers have to do with a radio program, television show, magazine article, movie, etc. in terms of those shows content? Nothing...so I don't get the association. Maybe I'm the weirdo here, but I've never viewed any advertising for any show I've ever watched as somehow connected to the show I'm watching and/or listening to. And I resent the people who insist on making this conflation and then taking their trumped up connection to now threaten advertisers with boycotts and other forms of social shaming to further their agendas. And of course, because of these stupid-ass people, the advertisers now have to act like they are in fact part of the shows and programs upon which they advertise. They'll announce the cessation of their partnerships with bullshit lines like, "Our company no longer wishes to be associated with such&such a show" or mentioning something about their company's "image" and/or "reputation". Really? Neither assertion makes sense to me from the point of view of an advertiser. I can only see such points coming about because of stupid assholes conflating advertising with the shows they advertise on.

       The point of advertising is to sell your wares and advertising is more effective on platforms which speak to the most people. I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, but I know a lot of people do...millions in fact (or not...maybe). Why would you not want to be associated with that? How is walking away from millions of potential customers a rational business decision? It's not even rational to take a boycott threat seriously. While there have been effective boycotts, they're notable for being small in number. The image and reputation arguments are also invalid. How is Honda's or Toyota's image and/or reputation served by Family Guy? How does Survivor hold up the reputation of Doritos? When you think of Desperate Housewives, does Pepsi come to mind? Who's actually making these associations between what is being advertised and the shows they're watching these ads on? And I don't want to hear absent these associations, bullshit ideas like sex toys would be advertised during children's shows because that wouldn't happen and not because of broadcasters forbidding it but because of demographics. A kid watching the Cartoon Express (I'm old) is not going to be contributing to dildo sales so sex toy vendors aren't going to be dropping their advertising dollars on such programming.

       Advertising is a necessary evil and will continue to be so for as long as corporations exist that have products to sell and services to offer. They need to remind you constantly of their existence or they will go away. There's a story I remember (but can't find proof of online...) about a soap company that was so successful that the owner deemed advertising of its product an unnecessary expense so he stopped...and business promptly plummeted. Out of sight, out of mind. His rivals did not stop advertising so they got his business (not that this does not happen). My point is that I don't want to give advertisers power over content decisions on the programs which they advertise: it's not their place. Their decision to advertise should only be based on either total readership/listenership/viewership or the demographics of that audience or both, not over what is being written/said/shown because the latter is not relevant to the former. But that's not the way it works because of the bullying tactics employed by people who don't grasp the concept of free speech.

        Simply put, if you don't like what is being said...don't listen to it. No one is forcing you to read an article/listen to a show/watch a program you don't like. As Opie correctly points out, there's a big difference between "I'm offended" and "I'm offended and no one should be allowed to listen to him". I don't abide by that kind of censorship.

        I also find such pushes hypocritical on the part of the protestors. These are often the same people who want government out of our lives or people who don't want corporations controlling us. It seems that when conservatives get offended (typically the small government type), they want the government to step in and do something about it; and when liberals get offended (typically the anti-corporate type), they want corporations to step in and do something about it (or step out and thus do something about it). But since this stupid post is about the latter, I'll conclude with this: You can't resent attempts by corporations to control our lives while simultaneously wielding them to control the media content we're exposed to.
     

IS COMPROMISE IMPOSSIBLE?

      I saw another post from a friend today about Canada having a regulation that prohibits transgendereds from boarding a plane if "the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents" and of course this has the "trans community" up in arms over discrimination and whatnot (even though there is currently no example on record of a transgendered being denied a flight under this regulation). It's not stated explicitly, but I'm guessing this would have something to do with identity theft or some other form of fraud. As a commenter pointed out, if your picture showed you as dark-skinned but you appeared white as snow to the boarding agent, they're not going to let you on board the plane. As I've mentioned before, transgenderism is where my line of acceptance is. I don't accept it as just another line in the broad spectrum of gender expression. Transgenderism sounds like a mental disease and should be treated accordingly.

      Now, don't get me wrong, I understand and grasp the concept of gender expression and how it might vary throughout the population. Looking at samples of my music tastes would surely confirm that I am not a typically gendered person with regards to stereotypes for my male sex. I know that men and women as a population range in their expression of masculinity and femininity and I'm cool with that because hey, vive la difference! Transgenderism crosses the line for me because of the reality denial. Again, he/she; boy/girl; man/woman; etc. are identifiers based on assigned sex (i.e. the sex you were born as) and not identifiers based on feelings or identity. But I'm rehashing and digressing...

       The compromise feels rather simple here and I will base it using myself as an analogue. I hate formal wear. I really do. I find it pretentious and physically uncomfortable to wear. I also find wearing suits to be uncomfortable psychologically...I don't feel like myself in them, more like a phony. Suits carry all that baggage of perceived wealth and status and the history that goes along with that perceived wealth and status. I'm a commoner...a working  man of the working class. I have no desire to appear as anything other than my station. However, when I attend a wedding or a funeral, I am expected to wear a suit and dress shoes and not the polo shirt, khakis, and sneakers I prefer. I put on the suit and dress shoes because I know the wedding or the funeral is not about me, but about the family of the deceased or the couple to be married (and even when it's my wedding, unless the bride-to-be is like me formality-wise, I will dress as formally as she expects for the occasion because a wedding, even my own, is not about me). I will put up with feeling uncomfortable in both the clothes and my skin for a day because I'm not an asshole douche who insists on making a scene for my own selfish preferences which brings me back to the transgendereds...

       If you're a transgendered person and your passport or ID has your sex listed as male, wear a fucking suit for a couple of hours and be uncomfortable for a few hours both physically and in your own skin and stop inconveniencing everyone with your selfish preferences. Consider it "gender formalwear" that you take out for "special" occasions. It's not that hard to do and it in no way compromises who you are or feel like you are and if it does, if you truly could not bear to wear stereotypically sex appropriate clothing for a few hours, tell me again how your condition is not that of a mental disorder. Stop making it all about you.

       And of course, a commenter named Jason did make just such an observation only to get the self-appointed thread minder, Christin, to chime in with this response:

That is not an option for some trans people, Jason. Look up “transsexual standards of care” and “transsexual real life test.”

Besides, being forced to “put (one’s) man pants back on for 8 hours” is an indignity… a discriminatory human rights violation.

       Really? A human rights violation? Overboard much? At least Christin says "some trans people" but that doesn't help her (his?) argument that transgenderism is simply another variant in the broad spectrum of gender expression and not an indicator of a mental disorder.

       Maybe it comes down to this: While I feel it is wrong for the majority to oppress the minority, I am not so easily persuaded that the minority owes no respect toward that majority. And if you're a minority of a minority, being mindful the majority opinion ought to be more of a priority. I look at it mathematically and to keep it sexual, homosexuals (and bisexuals) make up 3½% of the population in the United States as of April 2011 (I honestly thought it was 10-15%. I'm genuinely surprised) and transgendereds at 0.3% (or, for the sake of argument, about a tenth of the gay population). The question you have to ask yourself is when does the number grow small enough so as to become burdensome on the general population when demanding accommodation? And this can apply to any type of minority status such as religion, allergies, diet, and physical handicaps.

       Say you have a high school comprised of 1,000 students spread out over four grades (in other words, about 250 students per grade). This would mean, in this imaginary school, 962 students would be straight; 35 students would be gay/lesbian/bisexual (8 or 9 per grade); and 3 students would be transgendered (not even all grades would have one). Should those three students' demands for accommodation trump the expectations of the remaining 997 students? Would those three students be placing an undue burden on the remaining 997 in so doing? Is asking for conformity/accommodation from these three students an undue burden placed upon them by the rule-making body?

       I guess what I'm asking is, at what point does not being burdensome fall upon you and not the community at large? At what point must you do the accommodating and not the community? At what point does communal interest trump self interest? And how much self interest should be tolerated by the communal interest?

I HAVE A LINE

      I don't know what I really am politically. Am I conservative or liberal? Sites tend to peg me as centrist which would seem to fit information I've been learning about my personality type in that I prefer harmonizing with people over exerting my will. So I guess if conservative is red, and liberal, blue; that would make me purple. I would have to say I'm a bluish-purple. How blue? I don't know, but I do know when the waters get too blue, I'm out. Same for the red, though I wonder if I have a greater tolerance for the red waters than the blue.

TOLERANCE IS A ONE-WAY STREET...

      A friend of mine posted a link to this anecdote on Tumblr. The rough story is the allegedly homophobic dad who fears his son may be gay based on his desires to buy an "unmanly" videogame and play said videogame with a purple controller. The father would rather his son play a more "manly" shooter game with a regularly colored controller, threatening to hit him if he kept insisting over his father's objections. The older brother to this boy who was buying the game for his younger brother as a gift stood up to his father telling him that he was buying this game and controller as a gift for his brother because it's what he wants and if he (the father) was going to hit anyone, then it should be him (the older brother). At this point, the father leaves in disgust and the boy is assured by a girl that she likes the blue controller and shooter games (that is, atypically of other girls) and that "[t]here’s nothing wrong with what you like. Even if it’s different that what people think you should."

      Now, this is what I'm left thinking (aside from the desire to call bullshit on this story...it feels too perfectly crafted...like propaganda), why is tolerance always a one-way street? I really get the feeling that calls for tolerance are more like softened bullying tactics rather than genuine appeals to humanity.

      For those of you who must know, my personal opinion of this is that I do not support the father of this story...but I also don't support the girl in this story either. She's just as douchey to me. And the thing is you can't really give me the line about how the father's intolerance is worse because of the threat of violence or because it makes his son feel bad. The father's behavior only seems worse, I think, because its destructiveness is more immediately apparent. The girl's behavior only seems better, I think, because its destructiveness is more abstract.

      Instead, I try to look at this anecdote by its generalities. The mind becomes clouded and biased when presented with such specifics. The anecdote seems to boil down to conformity versus nonconformity and schooling behavior versus individualism and like any advice, each side can be both positive and negative depending on context.

      The father superficially seems to represent the conformist/schooling angle, urging his son to be a part of the group. Evolution readily enforces these behaviors and they are entirely appropriate in stable environments. Outward expressions of nonconformity are bad in fairly uniform areas. It can make you a target. After all, the tallest blade of grass is the first to be cut by the mower: it's the price of standing out. Individualistic self-expression is a risky choice if you are not prepared or able to defend your choices. I think of nature videos. The hawk goes after a flock but can't attack the flock directly without getting pummeled by collisions with the other birds. However, harassing the flock long enough eventually causes one of the birds to make a mistake and get separated. The separated one can now easily be targeted and killed. One could argue in support of the father (despite his alleged methods) that he is warning his son that this decision will result in him being separated from the flock leaving him exposed to bullies or ostracism. You could argue he is being protective and not necessarily homophobic. Maybe the father has misjudged his son, but he might also know that his son is not strong enough (emotionally and/or mentally and/or physically) to defend himself for making the choice, intentional or not, to leave the protection of the flock with his nonconformist behavior.

      The older brother defending his younger brother and the girl offering support seem superficially in the right and certainly would be in unstable environments where adaptation to change is rewarded rather than punished. Their rectitude, however, is dependent on their local environment. This is the unknown from this anecdote. Will this boy be the trendsetter (or another participant in an already-changing trend)? Is he a reflection of changing times and the passage of the "old way" into history? Is it necessarily a good thing to present this boy with the idea that the world is wrong and he is right? I think it's a good thing to try new ideas in light of the failure of the old. But trying new things when the old way is still working just fine or when there is only a hint that it is ultimately unsustainable opens oneself up to ridicule and being ignored because the issue isn't pressing. Think of our use of fossil fuels for instance. No matter how logically one may argue that changing slowly now would be cheaper in the long run, it comes across more as inconvenience because it's not a pressing issue. This idea that exists in our minds that does not let us change until we have to. As smart as we are, we don't have the influence over the older parts of our brain to overcome this.

      I'm not less guilty of this. I'm tolerant of variation within a society during stable times, but in times of chaos, expect us to conform and act as a whole against that threat. I want a balance of our competitive and cooperative natures. I want us to learn about both so that either way of doing things is comfortable as the times demand. Let's be supportive and play uncompetitively just for fun, but I also want to know that when the shit hits the fan, that we're capable of playing to win. Superficial variation is a luxury afforded to times of peace.

      So the message the writer of that anecdote concludes with, "They check out and leave, and all I can think is how awesome big brother is, how sweet little brother is, and how Dad ought to be ashamed for trying to make his son any other way." is wrong in my opinion. It's sweet, I don't deny that but I don't think that's the message we should be taking from this story. There's a missing element to what was going on in it: context. If the boy will suffer no consequences for his self-expression, if he is merely one more drop of water in a flood of change, then the father should indeed feel ashamed; but if the boy will face consequences, if he is indeed the tallest blade of grass, the older brother/girl should feel ashamed for effectively feeding him to the lions, the girl especially since she is least likely to be there to protect him from the negative results of her encouragement (whereas his brother may be able to defend him...at least for a time).

      I know this story is being used as a parable against shaming homosexuality, but I think it far more important to remind those who intend to buck the trend (or who are acting in a way which will buck the trend) that the road will not be easy for them. They may get lucky and have it easy, but if they are on the forefront of a seachange, then expect to suffer though your sacrifice may make the road easier for those who will follow. Pretending that it will be otherwise when encouraging another is a shitty thing to do to someone who wants to be different.