Save the Goddamn Humans
“Señor d’Anconia, what do you think is going to
happen to the world?”
“Just exactly what it deserves.”
“Oh, how cruel!”
(Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)
If there’s an edge of disaster, I believe it’s a rule that you must “teeter” on it. And when it comes to teetering, we human beings have pretty much mastered the art. Shit, I’d say it’s already a science. One of these days, though, the teetering is going to stop. Therefore, I’d now like to submit my request that the teetering stops on this side of disaster.
Perhaps, though, we’re in the midst of the disaster and it’s happening in slow motion. That’s why it’s tough to get too excited about it. One day, everything’s hunky-dory. The next day, the coworker or the classmate or the politicians or the asshole on the subway says or does something so outrageous, you wonder what insane coincidence has allowed him, or you, to remain alive for so long.
If one politician, through endless, accidental, gutless meandering, should happen to protect us from outside enemies, he or she is likely just positioning to be the most powerful of our internal enemies. I.e., the guy who protects your Constitution from sharia is probably the one who’s fucking his wife for purely procreative purposes.
This is the world we live in. The world is as mixed as the minds of most men. The people you respect let you down. The ideas you hate are practiced by people you want to love. Sometimes, you’re even your own worst enemy. But it’s your life, and blaming others for not bequeathing you with the world you would have preferred does nothing to bring you closer to that world.
I used to think that as long as the dictatorship arrives after my death, I could live with it. Seriously. But my actions have betrayed that. The problem, as anyone who knows me will tell you, is that I can’t keep my fucking mouth shut.
For the first eight years of this website’s existence, I said our ship is sinking. I also said it might not sink, implying that the right ideas could save us. But I contradicted myself when I said that the writers of this site “don’t aim to change minds”. It’s time I correct that contradiction. I do aim to change minds.
The world does not belong to those who hold the current majority of influence upon it. It belongs to the rest of us, too. And I’ll be damned if I let them take me down with them.
10 comments
Ahem…
ZOMG!!! wOOt!!!
Well, now that that is out of the way, good to see you are back on the saddle.
Also:
FIRST!!!
Man, I’m glad to see you’re back. Especially given that I’m one of those poor idiots dealing with hate and love and being your own worst enemy.
Love the new format. Looking forward to hearing more from you.
It’s good to be back. And damn, this technology stuff is pretty cool. Bring on the random Google searchers. With this commenting feature, you guys will have the chance to get in on the fun of demolishing them, too.
Wow! I finally make it back around to Save the Humans, and not only is there new content, but it’s been totally redesigned! It’s blog-shaped! I’m so disoriented. Welcome back, though!
I just read “Nice Guys Don’t Change the World,” from the old site & as comments don’t work in there, I’m posting here.
You’ve done a fair job of describing this thing about belief which I’ve been trying to articulate (I hope I haven’t already rattled on about it here and forgotten I did). You wrote of the “kindness” that’s really “the granting of momentary comfort to the ignorant by showing respect for ignorance.” Yes!
This is a weird aspect of being an atheist (or being anybody who deviates from the herd, on an issue precious to the herd) — that simply stating one’s personal opinion seems to be taken as an outright attack on theirs. It *really* bugs them. It seems as if I’m being told I’ve gotta believe too — *mostly* just so that I don’t hurt their feelings! So one learns to just not bother. But why is it that *I* should always be the one to show deference, in order to not hurt somebody’s feelings? Jesus-people rarely seem shy about being as forthright and unselfconscious as can be — they’re never worried about offending *me* with their “God will heal your pain” or whatever. So what’s the deal?
I have considered that maybe it’s just because I’m a nicer, more considerate guy than they are. I’ve also considered that this *could* suggest that, just maybe, irrational beliefs are maybe really *hard* to hang onto in the face of contrary evidence. Which would be encouraging, because I’ve always tended to cynically assume there’s just no reaching people — that “you can’t reason them out of something they didn’t reason themselves into” quote. But, if people deep down actually had an urge to be sensible, which kicks in even when they don’t want it to, well… that would mean there’s hope.
Can you please make this text-entry field taller? It’s so short, on my screen, that I can only see about 5 lines without scrolling, and I can’t even see the scroll-down arrow.
Here’s a funny ad that Google chose for your page:
“Why is the rapture a lie?
Jesus Christ will return to rule earth with the resurrected saints. ”
Sweeeet.
( sorry — I didn’t realize how gorram LONG that had gotten, till I saw it up there on the screen just now )
David, you wrote: “simply stating one’s personal opinion seems to be taken as an outright attack on theirs. ” I know what you mean, but I think it’s perfectly ok for someone to express emotions, both positive and negative, during a discussion. You are, in fact, attacking something in the situations you describe: their values. As long as they’re being honest, the occasional “how fucking dare you?!” isn’t the end of the world. I remember taking note of the interesting and laudable fact that Ayn Rand believed that booing by an audience was a completely legitimate reaction, as long as the purpose wasn’t to continually disrupt her speech. (Good suggestion about the text field - I’ll add it to my to-do list.)
I’m afraid I wasn’t clear enough then, in spite of my length.
I should have pointed out that I never ask for it …it’s when religious folk overhear something I said or just get a suspicion however, and then outright ASK me if I’m not a believer — confront me, I mean — and then I answer honestly …well then I’m on the stand, and am called to answer for all the world’s Unbelievers. They go out of the way to have this confrontation, is what I’m saying. I don’t want it. No need to beat you — just want to go my way.
Whether it’s a case of something like “God Bless You” … “No, thanks,” or an out-of-the-blue case of “Where do you go to church?” and… “I don’t.” — I’ve still come to expect there to be a grilling afterward. They just won’t let it go.
And I *do* let it go, you see. Or try to…
I don’t know. Maybe it’s just that I live in the “Midwest” and you live in Mr. Big Fancy Giant World-Class Cosmopolitan Modern City. But I should emphasize that it’s never that I was picking a religion fight or anything — cuz I don’t, despite what my wife might have told you — it’s that in numerous passive sort of failure-to-agree-quite-enough situations, I *have* been met with out-of-context discomfort or even anger.
(That’s weird, about the booing. I think of that a lot the way I think of monkeys. Only, monkeys are cute at least. Hey. Maybe it’s just that my Ayn was just really, really tough.)
Ok, now I get it. In this case, I do think that kind of reaction is due to your geo-intellectual region (to coin my own jargon). What I see over here in NYC is sort of the opposite - the assumption that everyone else in the world is liberal.
“Geo-Intellectual Region.” I like that — I think I’ll find quite a few uses for it.
I still wouldn’t trade it for what you make NYC sound like, though.
Later, it occurred to me that another way to describe that situation might be “emotional blackmail” — the idea of keeping disquieting ideas at bay because the other person doesn’t want to hurt your feelings. Sorta like a 4-year-old making a big show of crying to get their way.
Is this what the pop-psychology term “passive aggressive” means?
Leave a Comment