Don't Be Yourself

People say many stupid things, but “be yourself” has to be near the top of the list. Why would anyone say something so ridiculous and trite? Is it for some desire for authenticity in relationships, where authenticity is somehow regarded as noble? I’ll accept that answer as soon as someone nails down the meta-ethics that argues for the value of truth-telling. Or is it that the desire for authentic relationships supposedly allows us to discuss things deeply with one another, as if I couldn’t discuss the ramifications of assisted-suicide with a terminally ill patient I didn’t know well. Obviously then, the desire for authentic relationships is not the goal of anyone being themselves. I can have an authentic relationship with my employer without them ever knowing my deepest, darkest secrets (e.g. picking my nose and wiping it on other people). In actuality, when we tell someone to “be yourself,” usually we’re really telling them to calm down and STFU. Now, how that morphed into the phrase, “be yourself,” I do not know. But that’s not our point today. Anyone who in all sincerity tells someone else to “be yourself” probably hasn’t considered the ramifications.

While it may be all well and good to be ourselves when no one else is around, if there is any desire among people to live among others, then society as such needs some rules. Without such rules, whether they are written or unwritten, being ourselves has consequences. For example, if I am in a job interview and the potential employer asks me how I would handle a rude customer, I wouldn’t tell the potential employer how I would handle the rude customer in a manner fitting to who I really am if I would like to land the job. Moreover, if who I really am includes watching costumed midget porn, it would probably be in everyone’s best interest not to engage in that particular activity at work. There is the more obvious example in which I may be going on a first date, in which case I wouldn’t reveal parts of myself – lying by omission – if I would like to build a relationship with the other person since building a relationship can often only be built by easing the other person into your quirks. How many times how the following statement been uttered? “So I just found out he has a large collection of Princess Leia action figures. But, since I’ve already invested so much time in him, I’ll see if I can live with it.”

Probably the worst time to tell someone to be themselves is if the other person has homicidal tendencies. And since that is most people, it’s probably never a good idea to tell someone else to “be yourself.” Imagine this scenario: Two Muslims are in a cave talking and one say to the other, “Akeem, I’m thinking about bombing the maternity ward they just added to the local hospital. Only, I’m not sure the Koran says killing babies is acceptable.” Naturally, Akeem replies. “You shouldn’t worry so much, Omar. Just be yourself.”

You may have also noticed just how cranky people get when they reach a certain age and basically have said, “Fuck it.” Those senior citizens operating without a filter because they figure they’ve been around long enough to stop playing the game? They’re not exactly surrounded by friends and family, are they? In the words of Joss Whedon, “Always be yourself…unless you suck.” Well, we all suck a little bit. We’re human after all. But that doesn’t mean we have to be so damn human all the time. One good, long glance back upon history will show you the consequences of us being ourselves. Ain’t too pretty, now is it? 

The Flaw of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism, in its normative understanding, can basically be defined as the belief that every culture is of inherently worth or value. I’ve heard it said that subscribing to this belief is basically what keeps a homogenous society stable and its citizens from killing one another, with those proposing such an idea often offering The United States of America as their prime example. Certainly the example is a faulty one if the need to distinguish between hate crimes and non-hate crimes is any indication. It is also a faulty example if one considers the proclivity of equal rights proponents – be they American or otherwise – to demand rights for or protections of certain populations within other countries or cultures. 

For example, as of this writing, crimes in India over the past year or so have brought recognition to India’s “culture of rape.” Of course, their “culture of rape” has always been there but only now is it recognized how widespread the problem is. Obviously, no inherent worth or value is afforded to this India sub-culture other than from the perpetrators within that culture. It is similarly hard to imagine that in the Western world either a social liberal or conservative is going to claim that any culture that suppresses women to the degree that some Islamic societies do has some inherent value. It is clearly not true that people, at least in the Western industrialized world, actually subscribe to the full onus of multiculturalism’s definition. Perhaps qualifications are in order. 

Qualifications always are in order when considering the idea of multiculturalism, implying that the culture that thought up the idea clearly thinks they are superior to every other culture by insisting other cultures accept the premise of multiculturalism. What I mean is that if multiculturalism is to be accepted, even by the people who thought of it, caveats are in order since the people who thought of it obviously do not condone the suppression of certain segments of a population or rape. To insist other cultures accept multiculturalism implies that the one culture insisting another culture be multicultural clearly thinks the ideas of their culture are superior to the ideas of the other culture. If a caveat is inserted here which amounts to multiculturalism’s defenders saying, “We accept the other culture’s right to exist as they have some inherent value, but that doesn’t mean we have to like their values,” such a caveat is so belittling that the opposing culture’s value is degraded to the point of nothingness. It also allows the saints to go marching in in an attempt to tweek the other culture’s values until the other culture’s values are worth something to the proponents of multiculturalism. Essentially, multiculturalists are saying it is fine for other cultures to be different – in fact, it’s encouraged! – so long as the other culture doesn’t differ in their values too wildly. 

I do find the idea of multiculturalism (such as I have laid it out which is to a large degree how it viewed on college campuses if nowhere else) offensive on grounds other than it’s backhandedness. When I consider a culture such as the Taliban, I do not believe all cultures have inherent worth. I do not condone a culture that bans self-expression, violently suppresses it’s women, and calls for the literal deaths of those outside their culture for simply being outside their culture, especially the ones an ocean away who are so different from they are. Can a defender of multiculturalism actually argue for the worth of the Taliban as a culture without laughing? If they can, can they defend a culture which practices cannibalism or practiced live human sacrifice without laughing? Perhaps they can having defended the mostly laughable idea of multiculturalism for so long. 

I say multiculturalism is “mostly laughable” because I will not go on the record as claiming one culture is superior to another, so I do believe some degree of respect for most other cultures is warranted. Most cultures have as many good and bad ideas as any other, though I suppose in the case of the Taliban I consider that particular culture mostly full of bad ideas as I am not within that culture or subscribe to similar beliefs. Multiculturalism does have the possible benefit of considering ideas or problems through differing cultural lenses (among other lens), so I cannot discount a necessity for multiculturalism entirely. I believe some value can be found in most cultures although sometimes we may have to go looking for that value. Usually, the best value can be found at a downtown ethnic food cart. 

Accepting multiculturalism has never been what keeps groups of people from killing each other. It’s just that people don’t kill each other when resources aren’t an issue (and to a lesser extent, unless a group’s ideology comes under attack). Cooperation among groups born out of evolutionary necessity probably plays a much greater role in cutting across cultural divides than the idea of multiculturalism itself. That said, I politely ask multiculturalists to stop pretending they came up with a great idea. It was never theirs to begin with.

Fool's Gold

I’ve spent some time beating up on witless conspiracy theorists/”truthers” this month and I’m almost over it. That said, there is one more topic dear to their heart I’d like to skewer before moving on and writing something more relevant. Today I’m going to talk about gold. That’s right, gold, that shiny metal that makes pirates go “argh!”

You may have heard as of late that the world economy is teetering on the brink of collapse. In fact, according to conspiracy loons, this imminent economic collapse has been right around the corner since…well, let’s say it’s been so long it’s not actually imminent. At any rate, given the impending doom, you may have heard it’s a good time to buy gold (or, if you can’t afford gold, silver). Why gold? Because as any conspiracy theorist will tell you, gold is real money. Meaning, gold will be the only thing that is still valuable if fiat money collapses; fiat money being whatever a government declares to be money. The conflict in monetary theory arises from the fact that In the United States, until 1971, fiat money – dollars and coins – were theoretically convertible/exchangeable for gold. Well, some economic theorists (basically the weathermen of the business sector and just about as accurate) insist that fiat money is actually useless, having no intrinsic value. If an issuing government decides to withdraw any guarantee of their money’s worth, YOU won’t have anything tangible to exchange for goods or services but what you already own. To complete the circle, that’s why it’s considered necessary by people who’d like to see the world’s economy collapse to have gold. After all, it says only gold and silver shall be legal tender, right there, in the US Constitution Article I Section 10. Wait, is this where the idea of gold as ‘real money’ is coming from?

I think it is amusing that the people who buy gold as a hedge against an economic collapse or runaway inflation are the same people who wish dearly for the collapse of the US government (for starters). The thing is, if they’re getting the notion of gold being real money from the US Constitution, then the US government must avoid collapse for the US Constitution to retain its meaning. Sure, “truthers” could organize their own country and write their own constitution that values gold, but we’re talking about the same people who couldn’t organize a bake sale that didn’t sell special brownies. Naturally, conspiracy nuts couldn’t possibly be so ignorant as to not see this, so where else might they be getting the idea that gold is worth more than anything else? Where are they getting the idea that only gold (and sometimes silver) is real money?

Advocates of gold like to point out the history of gold’s many uses. Problem is, such a view is wrong. Yes, gold has been used as currency in the past. Funny thing is, in being so, it was actually fiat money since how much a gold coin was worth was derived from a state’s laws. Before gold’s use as money, it was used in the making of all sorts of ornaments, seeing how purty it is, to say nothing of its malleability. That’s right, gold’s value was – and often still is – based upon its aesthetics. In the 20^th century, gold has become very useful in the manufacturing of electronics due to its conductive properties and resistance to corrosion, but this does not count as part of gold’s historic value since this value of gold is rather new. Now, obviously I can’t say gold hasn’t been valuable to many people over the course of history but what I’d like to point out is that gold is no more valuable than anything else: What is valuable arises from the agreement of two or more people. While two or more people can agree that gold is valuable and can be used in exchanges (which is what money is, a facilitator of exchanges), two or more people can just as easily agree that sex is valuable enough to be used in exchanges. Thousands of years ago, two people would have considered sea shells a better form of money than a hunk of gold and used that in exchanges. That said, gold does not have any inherent value. Such an idea is utter nonsense.

My reasoned and brief examination of gold as not being inherently valuable will not stop the nearly-certifiably insane from insisting gold is real money, especially if they actually own gold. In such cases, the owner of such “money” pray for economic collapse so that they will become the new upper class. Not surprisingly, conspiracy wackos who buy gold are the same people who buy lottery tickets despite the odds (at least the ones I know). Somehow, despite the millions-to-one odds, they’re banking on an early retirement by either winning the lottery or the collapse of the New World Order, an organization that has the whole world under their thumb while the world simultaneously teeters on economic collapse. (That’s the consistency of their theorizing for ya.)

Finally, I’d like to say that should the conspiracy asshats be right and the world economies and world governments collapse, what’s going to stop me from going to their house with a gun and taking their gold or anything else they have? Their own guns? Wow, I guess I just pointed out something more valuable than gold come the apocalypse. Although, it’s not like I need it to shoot fish in this here barrel.