- yummy and huge
- located just before overpriced Mei Keng Fatt restaurant...
- worth every penny!
Saturday 25 February 2012
May Mei restaurant
Recommended: The crab- either chilli or marmite flavoured!
- yummy and huge
- located just before overpriced Mei Keng Fatt restaurant...
- worth every penny!
- yummy and huge
- located just before overpriced Mei Keng Fatt restaurant...
- worth every penny!
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Ang ko kuih
My mum made her delicious ang ko kuih today. I helped her a bit. Its mouth watering just writing about it.
She is about to go for an op. I can't help but look back at the number of times i had to go to the hospital as a visitor since i came back from glasgow. Hospitals are really a sad place. People's emotions go wild when they are admitted to hospitals. Tear drops of sadness overwhelmes even the strongest person when he or she has to lie down on a hospital bed. The fear of death comes. The fear of the worst comes creeping up in their minds.
As a visitor, it takes a lot of courage and will power to be there by your loved one's side because you visit the hospitalised to give support and encouragement that everything will be alright. Being emo is a no-no.
Today i also visited an aunt who just had her had a surgery yesterday. She tells her experience in the hospital, the fear and stress before the appointment of the surgery, its just makes her weep. She wept to be grateful that the surgery went well and she is still around with her supportive kids, sisters and niece caring for her.
From this, I learn, its important to have more children so you dont feel too lonely and there will be more care. To those ppl who say they dont want to get married or dont want any kids, you might want to rethink that for the sake of your old age. Family is important. Friends may come visit for one hour, but the one with the same blood ties and love will stick around for 24 hours n more till u r alright.
Woops.. I got carried away there. Suppose to be about ang ko kuih. Heres a pic of my mum making the juih and i must say, she looks as young as me..... ;)
** i will never understand why some people do not like taking photigraphs. Photographs are important memories to cherish and look back on when you have parted ways or can never see that special someone again...
She is about to go for an op. I can't help but look back at the number of times i had to go to the hospital as a visitor since i came back from glasgow. Hospitals are really a sad place. People's emotions go wild when they are admitted to hospitals. Tear drops of sadness overwhelmes even the strongest person when he or she has to lie down on a hospital bed. The fear of death comes. The fear of the worst comes creeping up in their minds.
As a visitor, it takes a lot of courage and will power to be there by your loved one's side because you visit the hospitalised to give support and encouragement that everything will be alright. Being emo is a no-no.
Today i also visited an aunt who just had her had a surgery yesterday. She tells her experience in the hospital, the fear and stress before the appointment of the surgery, its just makes her weep. She wept to be grateful that the surgery went well and she is still around with her supportive kids, sisters and niece caring for her.
From this, I learn, its important to have more children so you dont feel too lonely and there will be more care. To those ppl who say they dont want to get married or dont want any kids, you might want to rethink that for the sake of your old age. Family is important. Friends may come visit for one hour, but the one with the same blood ties and love will stick around for 24 hours n more till u r alright.
Woops.. I got carried away there. Suppose to be about ang ko kuih. Heres a pic of my mum making the juih and i must say, she looks as young as me..... ;)
** i will never understand why some people do not like taking photigraphs. Photographs are important memories to cherish and look back on when you have parted ways or can never see that special someone again...
Skate
The fun started, for me at least, when I googled Ingólfstorg. I got a cool article about the plaza's history (sorry, it's in Icelandic, but with lots of b/w photos...and I don't have the time to translate it), its international renown as a skate spot (see here - it's got a funbox!- and here - "NO problem with the police...there is a 8 step stairs, where you can grind the steps, and the steps are a little gap!!") and the fact that 68 submissions have been received by the City for its redesign (unfortunately also only in Icelandic, but you can download - or read in Google Docs - the PDF of the Redesign Competition guidelines.)
Though pretty much everyone agrees that the plaza is a total design failure as far as enticing humans to enjoy it (and other wildlife as well!) I'm sure skaters will be super unhappy to see it turned into something new, because we all know without having to ask that out of those 68 submissions, not one incorporates room for any kind of bling or flair by boarders. I'll go ahead and link this video of some locals doing the torg for posterity's sake, and also so you can hear how well young Icelanders swear in English...they've hardly even got an accent! : )
The winners of the first round of the design competition will be announced next week, on Leap Day, and I, for one, am really interested in seeing the results.
Tuesday 21 February 2012
Gay Marriage
Gay marriage* has certainly been in the headlines recently with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, joining a coalition of Christian groups to oppose David Cameron's plans to introduce same-sex marriage by 2015.
Lord Carey has said "This matter is so serious and so important for our nation – we cannot allow this act of cultural and theological vandalism to happen."
The first thing to say in this debate is that I'm amazed how many straight people assume that gays have the right to marry in this country. They don't. They never have had. Civil partnership was introduced under Tony Blair in 2004. It accords an almost identical set of rights as marriage to same sex partners who wish to enter into one. There are a few very minor differences to marriage: civil partners cannot enter a legally binding union in a church and then there's the name. This is a CP, not a marriage.
What's All The Fuss About Then?
Well in many respects the battle has been won. Civil Partnerships were passed with remarkably little debate in 2004. The vast bulk of other European countries (such as France and Germany) also have same-sex civil unions, but there are differences that may mean a same-sex couple doesn't get the same tax treatment as a married couple, or can't adopt etc. That is not the case in the UK: the rights are identical. Huzzah.
However, there are two important little points to be made. The first is a practical one. When you tick the "Marital Status" box on an application, PR, bank or mortgage form, you do not tick "Married" you tick "Civil Partnered". Instantly you are disclosing your sexuality to whoever reads the form. I regard that as a completely irrelevant and intrusive disclosure of fact about someone's private life that, reflecting the prejudices that still exist in Britain in 2012, might lead to discrimination.
The second is a rather more fundamental point. Up until 1967 many States in the USA prevented inter-racial marriages. The Supreme Court struck this down in the landmark civil rights case Loving v Virginia. Whites and Blacks were able to marry one another on absolutely equal terms as uni-racial couples. They had not previously been able to. Now, imagine instead of this landmark ruling, a separate institution had been created that accorded exactly the same rights as marriage but it had been called "inter-racial partnerships". What would the fuss have been about? A black/white mixed couple would have got the same rights. It's just a different name! Okay they have to tick a different box on a form, but so what?
Hopefully you get the point. This is about equality. As long as society is saying that same-sex couples do not deserve to have their unions accepted on the same terms as straight couples, it is making a distinction between the two unions. It is the State saying the two institutions are not equal. It is that simple.
But Marriage is a Traditional Institution!
The "tradition" argument is used time and time again to try to stop things from changing. There have been many traditions in this country. Until 1833 Slavery was permitted in the British Empire. It was tradition and had been the case for ever such a long time. Until 1882 married women could not own property. Until 1918 only men could vote in parliamentary elections. Until 1967 gay sex between consenting adults was punishable with prison. I could go on and on.... The point is that society changes, develops and moves on.
Nothing would ever change if the argument "it has always been this way" is applied: it is a silly non-argument. There can of course be very sound reasons not to change something, but simply to say "it's tradition and therefore by definition must not change" is wholly unconvincing.
It is also quite interesting to consider exactly what the tradition of marriage is in history and around the world. Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries permitted marriages between one man and multiple women. Judaism allowed them until 1000AD: under the Sephardic tradition this continued longer. Only one of the 22 Islamic Arab League countries prohibits them today. It is actually public policy under English private international law broadly to uphold polygamous marriages.
European Christian society permitted marriage with pre- or barely pubescent children for centuries for royals and nobles. The Old Testament details the incestuous marriage of Abraham with his sister Sarah, and that of Lot and his daughters. Marriage between first cousins was par for the course throughout Europe for centuries and is still permitted in many US States. Same-sex marriage itself existed as a legal institution in Ancient Rome and was around before the first straight Christian couple wed. It was only prohibited in Ancient Rome in 342 AD by a clause in the Theodosian Code. It was practised in China throughout the Ming Period. I've already touched on marriage until quite recently as being defined as only between people of the same race in some places. The same applies to defining it only to people of the same religion, which applies today in many societies.
If you are surprised or indeed shocked by some of these examples you are proving the point. The goal posts of the institution of marriage have changed repeatedly through the centuries, and in all likelihood will continue to do so. This is how society works: things change to reflect the views and norms of the people at the time. People once accepted these norms: they do not now. Homophobic hatred, promoted by the Church, was the norm: it now no longer is. Society has changed and so will the goalposts of marriage.
What Is Marriage Then?
Like it or not, those trying to "defend traditional marriage", you cannot simplify the argument to the institution always having been a fixed unbending concept of the union of one adult man and one non-related adult woman. Even today marriage is still not a homogenous concept around the world. It does not belong to one faith and has not originated from one single faith either.
Let's also be absolutely clear, Lord Carey, this is not a Christian institution that belongs to bishops to decide on: it belongs to humanity, to us, to society, to people around the world. It always has done.
What is then the core element that defines marriage, if it is not what the "traditionalists" say? In my view it is very simply the desire to declare a public bond about your union. The State allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not about creating a new institution (click here for that rather off the point argument). It is about extending this long-standing human institution to reflect a truly massive change in how society relates to same-sex unions today. The very point here is that couples will not say "I'm same-sex married" (as they would if it were a new institution, like CPs) - they will simply say "I'm married". It is the same institution that has existed for thousands of years - marriage - being extended to a group who could not previously marry.
Even if it were about creating a new institution (the logic of which I refute) that is also irrelevant. Was allowing women to vote creating a new thing, or extending an old thing? Actually I doubt too many women went to the poll box saying "I'm going to cast my woman's vote" but who cares: the argument is not relevant to the argument about granting equality regarding men and women being allowed to vote. Nor is it here.
It's All About Children
It is true that marriage often provides a framework for raising children, but it cannot be argued that marriage only exists to bring up children. There have been millions of childless marriages. Lots of children have been appallingly and miserably brought up within the context of marriage; equally children have been successfully raised in all sorts of different situations not involving marriage. The survival of humanity does not depend on a fixed view of marriage that has in fact varied through history.
If marriage is only about children, why should society permit infertile couples, those who do not want children, or post-menopausal women to marry? If permitting them to marry does not weaken the institution of marriage on a macro level, I fail to see how allowing a likely total of 75,000 same sex marriages in this country would do so.
"An Act of Cultural Vandalism"
Lord Carey claims this is an issue "so serious and so important for our nation". He said in his recent article in the Daily Mail that the Government has "no right to change marriage" and that "marriage will only remain the bedrock of a society if it is between a man and a woman." He continues that marriage is the "glue that holds this country together" and somberly adds that if the plans go ahead this will be "one of the greatest political power grabs in history." His article gives us the warning that "such communions would jeopardise the stability of our country."
How is that for hyperbole? One third of the population has not just been wiped out by the Black Death. Opposing forces are not meeting in battle during the bloody Civil War. In a true political power grab, the King has not just broken from Rome, nor has Parliament just signed the death warrant of the Monarch. The workers are not on General Strike. This is not June 1940: hundreds of thousands of Nazis are not about to invade. Yet this change of name from "civil partnership" to "marriage" jeopardises the stability of our great nation. Stop and think about this claim for a moment.
Note the caption on the Mail photo, taken directly from his article. Two gay women, who remember can already enter into a civil partnership, dress however they wish, and believe it or not are already allowed to kiss in public, are a "threat" to the stability of our nation... all because the name of their partnership might be changed to "marriage" by means of a democratically voted on, perfectly legal, Act of Parliament. What an actual drama queen that man is.
In 2001 The Netherlands became the first nation in the world in modern times to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Society immediately collapsed. (Oh, sorry, no it didn't actually). Next came Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina. None of them is a perfect society: such a thing does not exist. However many are much further up the list than the UK in terms the UN Human Development Index (Norway is at the very top).
I should love to hear George Carey for one moment define how "traditional marriage" in these countries has been undermined by the extension of marriage to same sex couples. I would like him to explain exactly what the wider damage to these countries is and how their societies have been destabilised in such a fundamental way. Cultural vandalism is a phenomenally strong term to use. I would like him to explain what it means in this context.
I want to know exactly what the harm is to the institution of marriage in allowing same sex couples to call their civil partnerships marriage. I have yet to hear one cogent argument that can prove any harm, or likelihood of harm. If your heterosexual marriage is somehow weakened by a gay couple marrying, you have the problem with your relationship. There is no cost to this name change: the financial rights accorded by marriage are available already to civil partnerships.
To be absolutely clear: we are talking about the institution of civil marriage here. 500 years after Henry VIII shifted the goalposts for marriage by allowing divorce, the Catholic Church is still not forced to marry divorced couples: they can make their own rules. There is no suggestion that churches would be forced to open their doors to same-sex partners if it conflicted with their own beliefs (it doesn't, of course with all faiths: see Reform Judaism, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Mennonite Church of the Netherlands, Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarian Universalists etc. etc.). If you're a divorced Catholic and your church won't accept you, come to a registry office. The law of this country will allow your union (as long as you're heterosexual, of course.)
Further, as Ben Summerskill put it "If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." Straight people are not somehow being converted here. No-one is forcing gay people to enter into these unions: it is simply giving gay people the same right as straight people to make that choice or not.
One thing that the introduction of same-sex marriages in these countries has of course already done is to destroy the "tradition" argument: an 20 year old alive in Holland has spent more than half his or her life with the tradition of same-sex marriage around them. Many of these countries are our close neighbours: gay marriage is a reality all around us. Marriage has been redefined once more. If history is anything to go by, it won't be the last time.
Mimicking a Straight Institution
There are plenty of individual gays who reject the idea of marriage as a failed example that they would not want to copy. I understand where they are coming from. As a woman friend on Twitter put it to me "Heterosexuals have undermined the institution of marriage far better than gays ever could". Why would anyone want to copy it?
I do not have a partner, I do not currently want or expect to get married to another man. I do want to extend this basic element of equality, though, to those who men and women who do. As long as kids use the term "gay" as an insult in school playgrounds, as long as gay teenagers self-harm because of their sexuality, as long as society sees homosexuality as something wrong, different, or not equal to heterosexuality, I will take this position.
To go back to my fictional example of "inter-racial partnerships" you can hopefully see why it is simply not good enough to have "marriage" for one group and separately to have "civil partnerships" for another. It is State defined discrimination and it is wrong. To equalise the two institutions would send out a huge message. Names matter; signals matter. This is a small, but symbolically highly important step on the path to equality. When kids grow up seeing same-sex people and couples on equal terms society will change. It is already happening, thank God - despite the best efforts of particular elements within society for decades now to prevent it.
Conclusion
I used to feel quite relaxed about this subject: kinda "meh". The more I think about it, and the more I see the hysterical utterances of the likes of Lord Carey, as expressed in the Mail and Telegraph, the more irritated I become. We live in a largely secular country. The definition of marriage does not belong to a minority group (traditionalist Anglican or Roman Catholic churchgoers and their leaders).
Once again, marriage does not derive from and belong to the Christian Bible, it is not a fixed concept, and it belongs to society to define. Lord Carey is being perverse when he attacks David Cameron and says law-makers have no right to extend the institution. It in fact very much belongs to us, society, and not to the bishops. It is our elected representatives that make laws on our behalf in Britain. All I can see is spite and prejudice coming from anyone seeking to deny this change. I have yet to see a cogent argument against it not based on "it's tradition" and "I don't want to give this to you".
A sign of how far our society has changed is the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is apparently pushing for this harmless, just, and simple change. I really hope that the pressure of these mean-spirited, hysterical, reactionary groups does not lead him to waiver in this.
* It's been correctly pointed out I should refer to same-sex marriage. There are bisexual couples who also wish to marry, so apologies.
Lord Carey has said "This matter is so serious and so important for our nation – we cannot allow this act of cultural and theological vandalism to happen."
The first thing to say in this debate is that I'm amazed how many straight people assume that gays have the right to marry in this country. They don't. They never have had. Civil partnership was introduced under Tony Blair in 2004. It accords an almost identical set of rights as marriage to same sex partners who wish to enter into one. There are a few very minor differences to marriage: civil partners cannot enter a legally binding union in a church and then there's the name. This is a CP, not a marriage.
What's All The Fuss About Then?
Well in many respects the battle has been won. Civil Partnerships were passed with remarkably little debate in 2004. The vast bulk of other European countries (such as France and Germany) also have same-sex civil unions, but there are differences that may mean a same-sex couple doesn't get the same tax treatment as a married couple, or can't adopt etc. That is not the case in the UK: the rights are identical. Huzzah.
However, there are two important little points to be made. The first is a practical one. When you tick the "Marital Status" box on an application, PR, bank or mortgage form, you do not tick "Married" you tick "Civil Partnered". Instantly you are disclosing your sexuality to whoever reads the form. I regard that as a completely irrelevant and intrusive disclosure of fact about someone's private life that, reflecting the prejudices that still exist in Britain in 2012, might lead to discrimination.
 |
| Get ready to reveal your sexuality when you reach 3 |
The second is a rather more fundamental point. Up until 1967 many States in the USA prevented inter-racial marriages. The Supreme Court struck this down in the landmark civil rights case Loving v Virginia. Whites and Blacks were able to marry one another on absolutely equal terms as uni-racial couples. They had not previously been able to. Now, imagine instead of this landmark ruling, a separate institution had been created that accorded exactly the same rights as marriage but it had been called "inter-racial partnerships". What would the fuss have been about? A black/white mixed couple would have got the same rights. It's just a different name! Okay they have to tick a different box on a form, but so what?
Hopefully you get the point. This is about equality. As long as society is saying that same-sex couples do not deserve to have their unions accepted on the same terms as straight couples, it is making a distinction between the two unions. It is the State saying the two institutions are not equal. It is that simple.
But Marriage is a Traditional Institution!
The "tradition" argument is used time and time again to try to stop things from changing. There have been many traditions in this country. Until 1833 Slavery was permitted in the British Empire. It was tradition and had been the case for ever such a long time. Until 1882 married women could not own property. Until 1918 only men could vote in parliamentary elections. Until 1967 gay sex between consenting adults was punishable with prison. I could go on and on.... The point is that society changes, develops and moves on.
Nothing would ever change if the argument "it has always been this way" is applied: it is a silly non-argument. There can of course be very sound reasons not to change something, but simply to say "it's tradition and therefore by definition must not change" is wholly unconvincing.
It is also quite interesting to consider exactly what the tradition of marriage is in history and around the world. Hinduism and Buddhism for centuries permitted marriages between one man and multiple women. Judaism allowed them until 1000AD: under the Sephardic tradition this continued longer. Only one of the 22 Islamic Arab League countries prohibits them today. It is actually public policy under English private international law broadly to uphold polygamous marriages.
 |
| Queen Isabella: Married (13) to King John (33) |
If you are surprised or indeed shocked by some of these examples you are proving the point. The goal posts of the institution of marriage have changed repeatedly through the centuries, and in all likelihood will continue to do so. This is how society works: things change to reflect the views and norms of the people at the time. People once accepted these norms: they do not now. Homophobic hatred, promoted by the Church, was the norm: it now no longer is. Society has changed and so will the goalposts of marriage.
What Is Marriage Then?
Like it or not, those trying to "defend traditional marriage", you cannot simplify the argument to the institution always having been a fixed unbending concept of the union of one adult man and one non-related adult woman. Even today marriage is still not a homogenous concept around the world. It does not belong to one faith and has not originated from one single faith either.
Let's also be absolutely clear, Lord Carey, this is not a Christian institution that belongs to bishops to decide on: it belongs to humanity, to us, to society, to people around the world. It always has done.
What is then the core element that defines marriage, if it is not what the "traditionalists" say? In my view it is very simply the desire to declare a public bond about your union. The State allowing a same-sex couple to marry is not about creating a new institution (click here for that rather off the point argument). It is about extending this long-standing human institution to reflect a truly massive change in how society relates to same-sex unions today. The very point here is that couples will not say "I'm same-sex married" (as they would if it were a new institution, like CPs) - they will simply say "I'm married". It is the same institution that has existed for thousands of years - marriage - being extended to a group who could not previously marry.
Even if it were about creating a new institution (the logic of which I refute) that is also irrelevant. Was allowing women to vote creating a new thing, or extending an old thing? Actually I doubt too many women went to the poll box saying "I'm going to cast my woman's vote" but who cares: the argument is not relevant to the argument about granting equality regarding men and women being allowed to vote. Nor is it here.
It's All About Children
It is true that marriage often provides a framework for raising children, but it cannot be argued that marriage only exists to bring up children. There have been millions of childless marriages. Lots of children have been appallingly and miserably brought up within the context of marriage; equally children have been successfully raised in all sorts of different situations not involving marriage. The survival of humanity does not depend on a fixed view of marriage that has in fact varied through history.
If marriage is only about children, why should society permit infertile couples, those who do not want children, or post-menopausal women to marry? If permitting them to marry does not weaken the institution of marriage on a macro level, I fail to see how allowing a likely total of 75,000 same sex marriages in this country would do so.
"An Act of Cultural Vandalism"
Lord Carey claims this is an issue "so serious and so important for our nation". He said in his recent article in the Daily Mail that the Government has "no right to change marriage" and that "marriage will only remain the bedrock of a society if it is between a man and a woman." He continues that marriage is the "glue that holds this country together" and somberly adds that if the plans go ahead this will be "one of the greatest political power grabs in history." His article gives us the warning that "such communions would jeopardise the stability of our country."
How is that for hyperbole? One third of the population has not just been wiped out by the Black Death. Opposing forces are not meeting in battle during the bloody Civil War. In a true political power grab, the King has not just broken from Rome, nor has Parliament just signed the death warrant of the Monarch. The workers are not on General Strike. This is not June 1940: hundreds of thousands of Nazis are not about to invade. Yet this change of name from "civil partnership" to "marriage" jeopardises the stability of our great nation. Stop and think about this claim for a moment.
Note the caption on the Mail photo, taken directly from his article. Two gay women, who remember can already enter into a civil partnership, dress however they wish, and believe it or not are already allowed to kiss in public, are a "threat" to the stability of our nation... all because the name of their partnership might be changed to "marriage" by means of a democratically voted on, perfectly legal, Act of Parliament. What an actual drama queen that man is.
In 2001 The Netherlands became the first nation in the world in modern times to extend marriage to same-sex couples. Society immediately collapsed. (Oh, sorry, no it didn't actually). Next came Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina. None of them is a perfect society: such a thing does not exist. However many are much further up the list than the UK in terms the UN Human Development Index (Norway is at the very top).
I should love to hear George Carey for one moment define how "traditional marriage" in these countries has been undermined by the extension of marriage to same sex couples. I would like him to explain exactly what the wider damage to these countries is and how their societies have been destabilised in such a fundamental way. Cultural vandalism is a phenomenally strong term to use. I would like him to explain what it means in this context.
I want to know exactly what the harm is to the institution of marriage in allowing same sex couples to call their civil partnerships marriage. I have yet to hear one cogent argument that can prove any harm, or likelihood of harm. If your heterosexual marriage is somehow weakened by a gay couple marrying, you have the problem with your relationship. There is no cost to this name change: the financial rights accorded by marriage are available already to civil partnerships.
To be absolutely clear: we are talking about the institution of civil marriage here. 500 years after Henry VIII shifted the goalposts for marriage by allowing divorce, the Catholic Church is still not forced to marry divorced couples: they can make their own rules. There is no suggestion that churches would be forced to open their doors to same-sex partners if it conflicted with their own beliefs (it doesn't, of course with all faiths: see Reform Judaism, the Lutheran Church of Sweden, the Mennonite Church of the Netherlands, Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarian Universalists etc. etc.). If you're a divorced Catholic and your church won't accept you, come to a registry office. The law of this country will allow your union (as long as you're heterosexual, of course.)
Further, as Ben Summerskill put it "If you don't like same sex marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex." Straight people are not somehow being converted here. No-one is forcing gay people to enter into these unions: it is simply giving gay people the same right as straight people to make that choice or not.
 |
| Sweden: a morally bankrupt nation on verge of collapse |
Mimicking a Straight Institution
There are plenty of individual gays who reject the idea of marriage as a failed example that they would not want to copy. I understand where they are coming from. As a woman friend on Twitter put it to me "Heterosexuals have undermined the institution of marriage far better than gays ever could". Why would anyone want to copy it?
I do not have a partner, I do not currently want or expect to get married to another man. I do want to extend this basic element of equality, though, to those who men and women who do. As long as kids use the term "gay" as an insult in school playgrounds, as long as gay teenagers self-harm because of their sexuality, as long as society sees homosexuality as something wrong, different, or not equal to heterosexuality, I will take this position.
 |
| Why should they be "separate, but equal"? What's wrong with equal? |
To go back to my fictional example of "inter-racial partnerships" you can hopefully see why it is simply not good enough to have "marriage" for one group and separately to have "civil partnerships" for another. It is State defined discrimination and it is wrong. To equalise the two institutions would send out a huge message. Names matter; signals matter. This is a small, but symbolically highly important step on the path to equality. When kids grow up seeing same-sex people and couples on equal terms society will change. It is already happening, thank God - despite the best efforts of particular elements within society for decades now to prevent it.
Conclusion
I used to feel quite relaxed about this subject: kinda "meh". The more I think about it, and the more I see the hysterical utterances of the likes of Lord Carey, as expressed in the Mail and Telegraph, the more irritated I become. We live in a largely secular country. The definition of marriage does not belong to a minority group (traditionalist Anglican or Roman Catholic churchgoers and their leaders).
Once again, marriage does not derive from and belong to the Christian Bible, it is not a fixed concept, and it belongs to society to define. Lord Carey is being perverse when he attacks David Cameron and says law-makers have no right to extend the institution. It in fact very much belongs to us, society, and not to the bishops. It is our elected representatives that make laws on our behalf in Britain. All I can see is spite and prejudice coming from anyone seeking to deny this change. I have yet to see a cogent argument against it not based on "it's tradition" and "I don't want to give this to you".
A sign of how far our society has changed is the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party is apparently pushing for this harmless, just, and simple change. I really hope that the pressure of these mean-spirited, hysterical, reactionary groups does not lead him to waiver in this.
* It's been correctly pointed out I should refer to same-sex marriage. There are bisexual couples who also wish to marry, so apologies.
Saturday 18 February 2012
Trolls and Tweeting About Politics
You hear a lot about "Trolls" on the Internet. What exactly are they? There are various definitions: they invariably centre around someone whose behaviour is intended to cause upset to another online. At their most extreme they can be someone who post offensive messages on a tribute site to cause grief to a bereaved family. I've heard of trolls who pretend they are young mothers who spend weeks making friends on things on Mumsnet, only to troll message boards and be offensive. Hilarious, yeah.
On Twitter my general understanding of a troll (there is also a verb, to troll) is someone who generally you do not follow, but who sees a tweet of yours through a search or a retweet, and who sends you an uninvited message that is either simply offensive, or that is intended to start an argument. It's not simply someone you disagree with: it's someone who is purposely goading of offending you for the fun of it. You will often never have seen their avatar or name before.
Why Do We Feed the Trolls?
Trolls are a regular feature of the medium and probably one of the things that upsets people the most. There is of course a simple mechanism to stop them "don't feed the trolls" - don't engage and/or block them. Would that it were that simple, however. First it takes some restraint if you've just been called a "fucking idiot" or similar not to respond. Secondly, the troll may appear semi-reasonable and you may think you are being drawn into a civilised conversation and want to defend your viewpoint. After a few exchanges your blood pressure goes up a notch and it takes even more effort just to walk away. You're drawn in and it rarely ends pleasantly.
What Is The Point of Arguing?
A huge strength of Twitter is of course that it facilitates an exchange of ideas. It is perfectly possible to have a conversation with someone of a different viewpoint that can make you think again about something. Perhaps this is why we engage: we want to listen. Perhaps, if we're really honest, it's just because we want to feel we are "right" and convince the other person and anyone else who sees the conversation of our position. From my experience a genuine reflection and revision of your own position is far more likely to happen when discussing something politely with someone you actually follow and know. Very rarely, you might meet someone new whom you disagree with, but nonetheless like and respect, and then decide to follow from one of these discussions.
Let's face it, though, someone who has strong personal views that abortion should be illegal, that gays are evil, who describes the European Union as the EUSSR, or that my being vegetarian is a lifestyle choice that makes me "an economic burden" (oh yes, I was told this for real over the course of 3 hours one evening recently) is not going to be able to convince me of their viewpoint. Nor am I going to be able to influence them of my diametrically opposed opinion. What *is* the point, unless the act of arguing from your keyboard makes you feel happy about yourself?
Personal Abuse
My last blog was a set of observations on what happens when a celebrity dies. It led to accusations that I was trying to censor people, lecture them, was being authoritarian, and these lovely unsolicited personal messages:
Why do people send stuff like this? More importantly, why can't they get their syntax and grammar correct (at least in the case of the first one)? Why don't they have to courage to put their faces on their avatars? These two are in fact members of a special little group of ghoulish right wingers and libertarians who always hide behind faceless anonymous profiles, who make lots of noise on Twitter, and who are quite well known for their unpleasant online behaviour. I'm still amazed to see people I know and like corresponding with the likes of them.
I've also had the head-ghoul, @Old_Holborn message me with the type of thing below. This isn't trolling, it's just sending pretty grotesque personal homophobic abuse. If I see anyone RTing the man I'm quite likely to unfollow them as a result. Why am I in effect naming and shaming these people? Do I have an axe to grind? Yes, I guess I do. I don't see why these people who have sent me abuse in public should not be named here for others to see so they can make their own judgements and steer clear of them if they wish.
On a philosophical level, I don't believe there's such a thing as inherently nasty or evil people: only people who in some situations behave in a bad way. I'm sure these guys have friends and family to whom they are pleasant, and often no doubt loving. All I know is that I've experienced them being pretty vile to me and to others, and it's not what I come on Twitter for. I'm able to shake it off better than some I know: if they caught the attention of a few of my friends I know they would leave the medium for good. They can create a stink that lasts months. I hope they feel good about doing this.
Politics
Now we come to politics. I used to enjoy tweeting about politics on Twitter. One of the things I love about Twitter is the flow of news, current affairs and the comments and reactions of an intelligent, engaged group of people I've found on here. I barely do it now for the reasons set out in this blog.
I have found that my enjoyment of Twitter has in some ways had an inverse relationship to the number of my followers. The more people who follow you, the more an RT will reach the likes of someone who wants to pick a fight. It's amazing that tweeting about being vegetarian will do this, or making some simple observations about the death of a celebrity. I really don't know how people with really large numbers of followers cope: I saw Sally Bercow tweet "Is it odd that when I hear an Amy Winehouse song I still feel sad?" and just watched the abuse pouring in at her. No wonder she doesn't seem to tweet half as much as she used to. Get into party politics and just wait for the really argumentative reactions. It's exhausting.
I guess I should man up, just ignore the crap, and say what I want to. I've chosen to shut up instead, because I've found a group of people to follow whom I largely agree with on politics, and prefer to listen to their reactions and discuss them with them one on one, rather than tweet openly in my timeline. There's less chance of an RT and hostile arguments that way. If Twitter is about encouraging free speech and open discussion, then this is a bit of a sad indictment of the way the medium can go. I do have stuff to say about current affairs: instead weariness with the arguments has led me to tweet about my dog, my socks, and what I'm having for breakfast. Great :S
Troll Guidelines
To conclude, and in the true spirit of lecturing people, being authoritarian, and being sanctimonious (thanks again guys!), here are some suggestions I have on the subject of Trolls. I shall endeavour to apply them myself:
1) If you don't want a lot of potential grief, simply don't engage with someone you don't know, who has sent you an unsolicited tweet disagreeing with you. It will very likely, unless you have super-human control and perception in knowing when to get out of the conversation before it heads to aggression, end up in your wasting an evening arguing, and ending up upset or angry. You will convince them of nothing. You may feel "right" at the end of it. So what? Do NOT feed the trolls.
2) Trolling, at least in its mild manifestation, is often a question of perception according to where you are sitting. All the trolls I know are right-wingers. I'm sure there are Tories out there who know a whole bunch of lefty trolls. The same people who behave reasonably to me may pick fights and behave very differently with others. Think about whether a response of yours to someone you don't know could be seen as "trolling". Honestly, why are you sending the message? To be mischievous, to pick a fight?
I'm not above admitting that I've done it on occasion, not that I'm proud of it. I sent a tweet to a random Christian this week who was being homophobic to some friends, who went on to call me a "liar" and rather bizarrely told me to "get a job". I ended up sending a deliberately offensive tweet as as result, when really I shouldn't have got involved. They could have blocked this person themselves if they were upset and are really quite able to look after themselves. Apart from the utter dickheads I've mentioned above, I'm sure no one would revel in the description of being called a troll. Don't inadvertently do anything to deserve the label yourself.
3) To put 2. in a nutshell, the best tweet I read all week was from @Yorkdid. I think he's 18 or 19. I understand it might not be original, but who cares. It is brilliant advice and I'd never heard it before formulated like this. It simply said the following:
There's a real person reading your tweet or message. Put simply, just run anything you're about to send past this simple test: how would I feel to receive this myself? Rocket science it is not.
4) Put the trolling in context. I follow 1100 people. I must have interacted with well over 5000 since I've been on Twitter. I've sent over 60,000 tweets and have probably received at least 20,000 @ mentions, given how much I interact. Of these around exchanges maybe 50, tops, have been nasty, aggressive and have stuck in my head. That's 0.25%. I actively dislike and seek to avoid perhaps 10 people of the 5000 tweeple I've spoken to. That's 0.2%.
It is so easy to get upset and to forget about all the "good guys" and what makes Twitter so enjoyable. Concentrate on the 99.75% and the 99.8%. I know it's not human to do so, but they really do deserve your attention more.
There we go. I feel better for having written this anyway, which I guess is the whole point of blogging. I hope you've enjoyed reading it. I'm now off to "make like a tree and wobble off". Yes, what the *actual* fuck <does> that mean...?
On Twitter my general understanding of a troll (there is also a verb, to troll) is someone who generally you do not follow, but who sees a tweet of yours through a search or a retweet, and who sends you an uninvited message that is either simply offensive, or that is intended to start an argument. It's not simply someone you disagree with: it's someone who is purposely goading of offending you for the fun of it. You will often never have seen their avatar or name before.
Why Do We Feed the Trolls?
Trolls are a regular feature of the medium and probably one of the things that upsets people the most. There is of course a simple mechanism to stop them "don't feed the trolls" - don't engage and/or block them. Would that it were that simple, however. First it takes some restraint if you've just been called a "fucking idiot" or similar not to respond. Secondly, the troll may appear semi-reasonable and you may think you are being drawn into a civilised conversation and want to defend your viewpoint. After a few exchanges your blood pressure goes up a notch and it takes even more effort just to walk away. You're drawn in and it rarely ends pleasantly.
 |
| Having a Temporary Break from His Keyboard |
What Is The Point of Arguing?
A huge strength of Twitter is of course that it facilitates an exchange of ideas. It is perfectly possible to have a conversation with someone of a different viewpoint that can make you think again about something. Perhaps this is why we engage: we want to listen. Perhaps, if we're really honest, it's just because we want to feel we are "right" and convince the other person and anyone else who sees the conversation of our position. From my experience a genuine reflection and revision of your own position is far more likely to happen when discussing something politely with someone you actually follow and know. Very rarely, you might meet someone new whom you disagree with, but nonetheless like and respect, and then decide to follow from one of these discussions.
Let's face it, though, someone who has strong personal views that abortion should be illegal, that gays are evil, who describes the European Union as the EUSSR, or that my being vegetarian is a lifestyle choice that makes me "an economic burden" (oh yes, I was told this for real over the course of 3 hours one evening recently) is not going to be able to convince me of their viewpoint. Nor am I going to be able to influence them of my diametrically opposed opinion. What *is* the point, unless the act of arguing from your keyboard makes you feel happy about yourself?
Personal Abuse
My last blog was a set of observations on what happens when a celebrity dies. It led to accusations that I was trying to censor people, lecture them, was being authoritarian, and these lovely unsolicited personal messages:
 |
| From someone I'd not spoken to before |
 |
| From someone I blocked 9 months ago |
I've also had the head-ghoul, @Old_Holborn message me with the type of thing below. This isn't trolling, it's just sending pretty grotesque personal homophobic abuse. If I see anyone RTing the man I'm quite likely to unfollow them as a result. Why am I in effect naming and shaming these people? Do I have an axe to grind? Yes, I guess I do. I don't see why these people who have sent me abuse in public should not be named here for others to see so they can make their own judgements and steer clear of them if they wish.
 |
| From Someone Who is Quite Sick |
On a philosophical level, I don't believe there's such a thing as inherently nasty or evil people: only people who in some situations behave in a bad way. I'm sure these guys have friends and family to whom they are pleasant, and often no doubt loving. All I know is that I've experienced them being pretty vile to me and to others, and it's not what I come on Twitter for. I'm able to shake it off better than some I know: if they caught the attention of a few of my friends I know they would leave the medium for good. They can create a stink that lasts months. I hope they feel good about doing this.
Politics
Now we come to politics. I used to enjoy tweeting about politics on Twitter. One of the things I love about Twitter is the flow of news, current affairs and the comments and reactions of an intelligent, engaged group of people I've found on here. I barely do it now for the reasons set out in this blog.
I have found that my enjoyment of Twitter has in some ways had an inverse relationship to the number of my followers. The more people who follow you, the more an RT will reach the likes of someone who wants to pick a fight. It's amazing that tweeting about being vegetarian will do this, or making some simple observations about the death of a celebrity. I really don't know how people with really large numbers of followers cope: I saw Sally Bercow tweet "Is it odd that when I hear an Amy Winehouse song I still feel sad?" and just watched the abuse pouring in at her. No wonder she doesn't seem to tweet half as much as she used to. Get into party politics and just wait for the really argumentative reactions. It's exhausting.
I guess I should man up, just ignore the crap, and say what I want to. I've chosen to shut up instead, because I've found a group of people to follow whom I largely agree with on politics, and prefer to listen to their reactions and discuss them with them one on one, rather than tweet openly in my timeline. There's less chance of an RT and hostile arguments that way. If Twitter is about encouraging free speech and open discussion, then this is a bit of a sad indictment of the way the medium can go. I do have stuff to say about current affairs: instead weariness with the arguments has led me to tweet about my dog, my socks, and what I'm having for breakfast. Great :S
Troll Guidelines
To conclude, and in the true spirit of lecturing people, being authoritarian, and being sanctimonious (thanks again guys!), here are some suggestions I have on the subject of Trolls. I shall endeavour to apply them myself:
1) If you don't want a lot of potential grief, simply don't engage with someone you don't know, who has sent you an unsolicited tweet disagreeing with you. It will very likely, unless you have super-human control and perception in knowing when to get out of the conversation before it heads to aggression, end up in your wasting an evening arguing, and ending up upset or angry. You will convince them of nothing. You may feel "right" at the end of it. So what? Do NOT feed the trolls.
2) Trolling, at least in its mild manifestation, is often a question of perception according to where you are sitting. All the trolls I know are right-wingers. I'm sure there are Tories out there who know a whole bunch of lefty trolls. The same people who behave reasonably to me may pick fights and behave very differently with others. Think about whether a response of yours to someone you don't know could be seen as "trolling". Honestly, why are you sending the message? To be mischievous, to pick a fight?
I'm not above admitting that I've done it on occasion, not that I'm proud of it. I sent a tweet to a random Christian this week who was being homophobic to some friends, who went on to call me a "liar" and rather bizarrely told me to "get a job". I ended up sending a deliberately offensive tweet as as result, when really I shouldn't have got involved. They could have blocked this person themselves if they were upset and are really quite able to look after themselves. Apart from the utter dickheads I've mentioned above, I'm sure no one would revel in the description of being called a troll. Don't inadvertently do anything to deserve the label yourself.
3) To put 2. in a nutshell, the best tweet I read all week was from @Yorkdid. I think he's 18 or 19. I understand it might not be original, but who cares. It is brilliant advice and I'd never heard it before formulated like this. It simply said the following:
There's a real person reading your tweet or message. Put simply, just run anything you're about to send past this simple test: how would I feel to receive this myself? Rocket science it is not.
4) Put the trolling in context. I follow 1100 people. I must have interacted with well over 5000 since I've been on Twitter. I've sent over 60,000 tweets and have probably received at least 20,000 @ mentions, given how much I interact. Of these around exchanges maybe 50, tops, have been nasty, aggressive and have stuck in my head. That's 0.25%. I actively dislike and seek to avoid perhaps 10 people of the 5000 tweeple I've spoken to. That's 0.2%.
It is so easy to get upset and to forget about all the "good guys" and what makes Twitter so enjoyable. Concentrate on the 99.75% and the 99.8%. I know it's not human to do so, but they really do deserve your attention more.
There we go. I feel better for having written this anyway, which I guess is the whole point of blogging. I hope you've enjoyed reading it. I'm now off to "make like a tree and wobble off". Yes, what the *actual* fuck <does> that mean...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)