Side Notes – Page 16 – A Geek With Guns

Double Standards

I haven’t written about the fiasco with Mozilla’s five minute CEO because I felt it was stupid but Tam perfectly sums up something that really bugged me:

I’ve seen some pretty interesting rationalizations over the past few days from people nominally on my team for why it was okay for Metcalf and Zumbo to be shown the door for offending sponsors or being out of step with their subcultural zeitgeist, but Brendan Eich’s ouster was just… zomg… FIRST AMENDMENT!

Didn’t we just leave this ducking party?

You know that whole culture thing I discussed? Yeah, this is the type of shit I was talking about. There are still a lot of gunnies that talk about freedom but only mean freedom for everybody who is like them. When somebody does something that opposes gun rights gunnies call for their head. But when somebody does something that opposes their Christian morals they hide behind the veil of voluntary association.

I believe that Eich has every right to give his money to whatever cause he so desires. I also believe that people who oppose his cause have every right to call for his removal. Both acts are exercises of free speech. In the case of Eich the speech of his opposition won out. Whether he was forced to resign or did so voluntarily is unimportant. What is important is that he did something that pissed off a lot of Mozilla’s user base and that was bad for Mozilla’s business.

Imagine if Shannon Watts was appointed CEO of Mozilla. The general shooting community would react exactly as the gay rights community acted when Eich was appointed CEO. But since social conservatism runs strong in the shooting community a lot of words have been spent trying to justify how Eich being forced to step down was a horrible thing and why any good, upstanding, moral person should dump Firefox immediately (I’m exaggerating that last part a bit, I only know three gunnies who were advocating for people to dump Firefox after Eich stepped down).

Voluntary association and free speech run both ways. If an individual or organization is free to stop associating with somebody who is anti-gun then they are also free to stop associating with somebody who opposes legalized same-sex marriages.

I’m Back

Some of you may have noticed that the website was offline most of yesterday. As it turns out the SSL certificate for this domain expired yesterday, which was fine because I was going to have to revoke it due to the Heartbleet bug recently revealed in OpenSSL. Unfortunately I was traveling for business when this all happened so I decided to take the server offline until I could return home and get the problems fixed.

Yesterday I installed new versions of OpenSSL and Nginx to alleviate the Heartbleed bug and verified the fix via the Qualys SSL testing tool (this blog has an “A” rating). I also loaded a new certificate onto the server. Fortunately, thanks to the use of forward secrecy, any traffic that may have been intercepted from my server still remains undecryptable even if somebody did manage to exploit the Heartbleed vulnerability to acquire my private key.

Japanese Archers Circa 1860s

Here’s an interesting picture I stumbled across on Reddit:

Supposedly its a colorized photograph of Japanese archers from around 1860. What I find interesting is how Japanese bows, known as yumi, were constructed. As the picture shows the bows are very tall and asymmetrical. While the common belief is that yumi were designed in this asymmetrical manner to make them easier to use while on horseback the design actually predates horseback archery in Japan.

The bow is also drawn in a manner different than most bows. In the video you can see how the archer actually starts with the bow and arrow above his head and lowers it as he draws:

Nothing to See Here

There’s nothing for you to see today and you can blame E. E. Knight for it. Baltic Gambit, the latest novel from the Vampire Earth series, was released yesterday and I spent a good chunk of the evening reading it instead of blogging. So far the book has been great so if you’re looking for something to read (which I’m assuming you are because you’re here) I recommend acquiring a copy.

Whose Cheerios Did I Piss In

Anybody who has sent an e-mail to my blog account knows that my response times are seldom speedy. I usually don’t touch my e-mail in any regard over the weekend so last night when I finally got around to checking the weekend’s e-mails I was surprised. Normally I get two or three e-mails on my blog account over the weekend but this weekend I received 43. 40 of these were from people who are apparently very upset with me. What I find most interesting about this slew of e-mails is that the accusations don’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Here are some of the more entertaining messages I received (poor grammar preserved for LULZ):

I found you nazi shitbag.

I don’t like nazi shit bags. You think you can write about white rights and get away with it? I’m going to call your host and have your site removed!!!! What do you have to say about that you piece of shit?

Um… good luck?

Hey you mens rights fuckhead, we know who you are. We don’t tolerate misogynists in Minneapolis. We’re going to burn your fucking house down.

Well that’s not very nice. Also, mens’ rights? I’m kind of curious where that accusation stems from.

You scumsucking shitforbrains. Im going to kill you you fascist piece of shit.

I’m sorry sir or ma’am but it appears as though there is a line forming to kill me. If you will take a number I’ll help you as soon as possible.

You think your so smart but we know where you live. You either take down this blog or we’re going to take you out. You have been warned.

Take me out where? I do enjoy Chinese food. Can we go somewhere that serves General Tso’s chicken?

Hey Christopher Burg,

Do you think you and spread your Nazi filth without getting your ass kicked? We’re going to put you in an oven and roast you alive. I hope you have your will in order.

I don’t recall writing any form of Nazi propaganda on this site. In fact, as an anarchist, I probably hate Nazis more than the most zealous social justice crusader. Also, as a word of warning, burning flesh and hair smells awful. Seriously, pluck a few hairs from your head and light them on fire then take a whiff. Do you really want to be smelling that for the several hours?

Christopher Burg,

Your a sexist racist nazi asshole. I take pleasure in killing sick fucks like you. I know where you live and I’m going to get you when you least expect it. When I do I’m going to start by skinning you slowly. I will take a strip of skin off of you with a vegetable peeler once an hour. Then I’m going to hang you from your arms and light a fire under your feet so they burn. Then I’m going to pour vinegar in your wounds. Then I’m going to make you drink rubbing alcohol until your insides turn to must. Then I’m going to finish it off by covering you in gasoline and lighting you on fire.

There are several things worth noting here. First, the art of closing a written message is dead. Not a single angry e-mail concluded with “Sincerely”, “Yours truly”, “I hope you die”, or anything like that. This saddens me. Second, I really need to put ads up on this site so I can make some money off of these people. I assume that they visited my site before sending off their angry e-mails but I can’t be sure since the accusations really don’t jive with the articles I’ve written. Third, the art of intimidation, like the art of closing a written message, is dead. Before the days of the Internet people at least had the courtesy of sending a letter composed of individual letters cut out of newspaper and magazine articles and pasted to the sheet of paper. Sometimes if they really wanted to intimidate you they would nail a burlap sack containing a dead cat or severed horse head to your door. Now people are lazy and just send angry e-mails. People need to own their anger and take pride in it. Fourth, starting each successive sentence with the same word is dull. Take a look at the last letter. It’s all “Then I’m going to do this” and “Then I’m going to do this”. There’s nothing more disappointing than a grammatically lazy death threat.

But I think the most important thing that needs to be pointed out is how disappointed I am in my newfound fan base. I partially attribute my disappointment to the shorter attention span most Americans have today. But if you are angry enough to write a death threat to somebody you should at least have the decency to perform a followup. According to the timestamps the vast majority of angry e-mails were sent on Friday. A few more came in on Saturday and only two of the e-mails came in on Sunday. There wasn’t a single e-mail from yesterday. Talk about a lack of dedication. If my newfound fan base was truly dedicated to hating my guts I could have had posting material for several days. But they’re lazy so I really only have enough material for a single post, which means I will have to actually look for things to write about.

Before I close this post I have a favor to ask of my newly found fan base. If one of you would be so kind as to inform me of the specific post that made you so upset I would greatly appreciate it. That way I can write more of the same. Then you can continue your feed on your impotent rage and I can stick some ads up on this site and make a little money. It would be a mutually beneficial relationship.

Is Political Correctness an Attempt to Overcome a Feeling of Powerlessness

Something I have been thinking about lately is the political correctness movement. By that I mean the movement that seems to seek out things to be offended by. Everything seems to be offensive to somebody today. I’m not referring to things like racism, sexism, or other forms of bigotry. Simply using select words or having conversations on certain topics will cause somebody to claim that they are offended.

Calling something retarded will often put you at the receiving end of a fiery diatribe. Using gendered terms (which are hard to avoid when you’re using the English language) can summon the wrath of the soldiers fighting in the great Gender Wars. Many people become offended by merely hearing topics be brought up. Want to discuss the potential of cannabis as a weapon against cancer? You will almost certainly be accused of spreading harmful rumors that will kill people. Bringing up the detrimental characteristics of centralized education will lead to you being accused of hating children. I could go on but I think you get the point.

The more I think about this the more I wonder if this upsurge in political correctness is, at least in part, due to an increased sensation of powerlessness and an attempt to reassert a feeling of empowerment. Part of what got me thinking along these lines is the psychological phenomenon known as reactance:

Psychological reactance occurs in response to threats to perceived behavioral freedoms. An example of such behavior can be observed when an individual engages in a prohibited activity in order to deliberately taunt the authority who prohibits it, regardless of the utility or disutility that the activity confers.

I believe there is an overall increasing feeling of powerlessness in our society. Part of this is due to the government command more and more of our daily lives, part of it is due to the faltering economy that has left many unemployed for extended lengths of time, part of it is due to the realization that we the people have no effective voice in regards to government, etc. In the grand scheme of things we don’t seem to have much power. How best could one restore a feeling of empowerment? By wielding power over another.

When you say something politically incorrect is will often result in one or two people trying to shout you down. Shortly after those first people begin they will often be joined by more and more people. I’m wondering if those instances go something like this:

Jane: “Blah blah blah something potentially offensive blah blah blah.”

Bob: “I can’t believe you said that! You’re a racist sexist bigot bad person!”

Adam: “Shut the fuck up, Bob! You can’t go around spewing that offensive hate mongering here!”

At this point Bob and Adam are beginning to feel a little power. The two of them are succeeding in shutting Jane up.

Jenny: “What did Jane say? What a fucking bitch! I want to kicker her ass!”

Now Jenny is feeling a little power while Bob and Adam are beginning to feel even more power. Not only did they manage to shut Jane up but other people are following them. They’re becoming leaders!

As more people join in shouting Jane down the feeling of empowerment (for everybody except Jane) increases. Through this act of taking offense people have been able to gain a feeling that they do have power over their world. Since political correctness is, by definition, politically acceptable there is no real chance that authorities will step in to stop those people from silencing Jane.

I claim to have no scientific basis for this thought. It’s merely an idea that I have developed to explain observations. But it is an interesting thought exercise nonetheless. Could political correctness be an attempt by the powerless to feel empowered? Could this explain how political correctness has become more prevalent as the general feeling of empowerment has diminished?

Oderus Urungus Has Sadly Departed

It’s a sad day for metalheads. Oderus Urungus, the front thing for GWAR, has been reported as dead:

The founder and lead vocalist for the heavy metal band GWAR was found dead in his Virginia home on Sunday, police said.

The body of Dave Brockie, 50 — who performed under the name of “Oderus Urungus” for the absurdly grotesque hardcore band — was found inside his Richmond home shortly before 7 p.m., a police spokeswoman told the Daily News.

Investigators did not immediately suspect foul play, but an autopsy was scheduled to determine a cause of death.

I think most of us are aware that Oderus isn’t dead. He has likely tired of the putrid scum of this planet and left to find something better. Wherever he ends up will be made a better place by the metal he will introduce.

Equal Time

Back in the day the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established the Fairness Doctrine, which stuck with us until 1987. The Fairness Doctrine mandated that television and radio broadcasters give balanced coverage to opposing viewpoints on a topic. While the doctrine is gone the attitude many hold that broadcasters must give balanced coverage remains. Recently a group of creationists have taken offense to the way life on this planet was presented on the show Cosmos (a new show that many of my friends swear is the most important show on Earth but I decided not to watch). In reaction to this offense there has been come murmur about requiring Cosmos to provide airtime to the theory of creationism:

Creationists held a pity party for themselves Thursday because “Cosmos” isn’t being fair and balanced to their beliefs.

“Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all,” said Danny Falkner, of Answers In Genesis, which has previously complained about the show.

Falkner appeared Thursday on “The Janet Mefford Show” to complain the Fox television series and its host, Neil deGrasse Tyson, had marginalized those with dissenting views on accepted scientific truths, reported Right Wing Watch.

“I don’t recall seeing any interviews with people – that may yet come – but it’s based upon the narration from the host and then various types of little video clips of various things, cartoons and things like that,” Falkner said.

Mefferd said the show should at least offer viewers a false compromise.

I don’t care about this particular pissing match but it has provided me an convenient platform to discuss the idea of balanced coverage. When people think of balanced coverage they often believe that it requires all views to be given equal coverage or at least a mention. In practice this is not how balanced coverage works.

People often mistakenly believe that there are only two points of view on any issue. They see the issue as “us versus them”. That is to say one side of the issue, specifically the side they agree with, is correct while the other side is wrong. This leads people to believe balanced coverage involves providing the Republican and Democratic views of an issue, Christian creationism and evolution, Christianity and Atheism, etc. But binary options don’t cover all sides of an issue.

I’m guessing both Mefferd and Tyson would agree that the origin of life stories from Norse mythology shouldn’t be given airtime. In this case I would argue that such a viewpoint held by Tyson would be consistent since he is arguing in favor of providing scientific theories on his science show. But Mefferd, who is arguing that Christian creationism should be given equal time as evolution on Cosmos, would be making an inconsistent argument by claiming equal time should be given to her views without it also being given to other points of view.

The argument over the origins of life on this planet are the only occurrences of issues that are mistakenly treated as binary by the general public. Politics is rife with binary choices. We generally get viewpoints from Democrats and Republicans. Left out of the debate are libertarians, communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. Many people who argue in favor of balanced coverage between Republicans and Democrats would argue that third-parties or apolitical viewpoints shouldn’t receive any coverage.

This is where the idea of balanced coverage begins to look a little ridiculous. How can you offer balanced coverage to thousands of different theories and beliefs? Many religions have differing accounts on the creation of life on Earth. There are almost as many political views as there are people on this planet. Each of us is a unique individual so there is the potential of roughly seven billion points of view on any given issue. Mandating balanced coverage of all viewpoints of an issue is unmanageable. But offering binary choices and calling it balanced is dishonest. Either way mandating balanced coverage is idiotic.

Fun With History

I’m a history buff. I know, what fun blogger isn’t? But my interest in history doesn’t lie in anything specific. While there are a few historical topics that greatly interest me such as feudal Japan and Viking Age Europe, I generally find myself studying random topics because something about that topic piqued my interest. Recently I’ve found myself interested in the history of alchemy, the predecessor to chemistry. To satisfy this interest I have been reading The Secrets of Alchemy (Synthesis) by Lawrence M. Principe. It’s an excellent title if you are interested in the topic.

During the first part of the book, which discusses Greco-Egyptian alchemy, there is a short discussion of the monetary debasement that was occurring in Rome at the time. As I didn’t expect to find a common thread between my interest in alchemical history and economic theory this discussion surprised me. As it turns out Diocletian was busy debasing the Roman currency by reducing the amount of precious metal in issued coinage.

Diocletian apparently ordered the destruction of all alchemical literature involving silver and gold. While alchemists at the time had not found a way to transmute base metals into noble metals they did find numerous ways to make base metals look like, at least on the surface, noble metals. In addition to writing down processes for making base metals appear to be noble metals the alchemists also wrote down processes for discovering such slights of hand. The theory put forth in the book, which I find very intriguing, is that Diocletian ordered the destruction of alchemical works involving silver and gold because he didn’t want the knowledge about how to detect debased currency to spread.

One of my favorite aspects about studying history is finding all of the common threads that run between my various interests. This story was certainly one of the most interesting collision between my interests that I’ve encountered.

Photograph of Samurai

I’ve had a fascination with Japanese history since college. There’s something about an island that maintain a mostly isolated existence from the rest of the world for hundreds of years that makes for some interesting studying. My fascination is what motivated me to take up classes to learn how to properly wield a samurai sword. It’s also what makes photographs such as this one really neat:

I stumbled across this picture on the @History_Pics Twitter account, which I encourage you to follow if you have an interest in general history. There has been some very interesting photos posted on that feed and this one just happened to fit my interests enough that I found is worth posting.