Snapchat, Curt Schilling in the PC Crosshairs

Posted on April 22, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Political Correctness, Social Commentary • Tagged 420 Day, Blackface, Bob Marley, cultural appropriation, Curt Schilling, ESPN, Harriot Tubman, politically correct, Snapchat • Leave a comment

—April 22, 2016

OK, Kid’s, it’s Friday and you know what that means….

That’s right, time for the MJM weekly rantathon about the latest politically correct idiocy and/or other bullshit afflicting our world like….

I don’t know, like…it’s getting ridiculous. The easily outraged and offended PC crowd seems to be getting more volatile by the week—more touchy about anything that might cause offense, especially if the offense is at all directed in any manner toward any of their sacred cows.

I mean, it sucks to be a comedian these days, cause just about everybody but straight, white, conservative males is off limits. Bust a joke about Blacks, Gays, Chinese, Muslims, Mexicans, females, the mentally unstable, anything “trans,” etc., and the PC righteous will set out to destroy you for your insensitivity.

Begs the question: if the PC crowd refuses to find any humor amidst the foibles of humanity (other than that of straight, White, conservative males), and seem to spend all of their time and energies looking for excuses to wield their self-righteous outrage, do they ever find time to have fun? Do they have a sense of humor? Can they crack a smile? I kind of doubt it….

But I digress. I am supposed to be ranting about the latest politically correct idiocy afflicting our world like…for this week we’ll say “like the fetid puss of a festering boil.”

Heading our list for this week are the usual easily outraged suspects who just had to jump on the PC bandwagon to express their outrage and offense over Snapchat’s use of a Bob Marley filter on 420 Day. The filter allows users to superimpose the reggae star’s classic dreadlocked Jamaican look over their own or others’ faces on the social media photo-sharing service.

Not only were the PC holy warriors outraged by this alleged cyber “Blackface,” but they felt the use of the iconic musician’s likeness as a Snapchat filter was a case of cultural appropriation and that its use diminished Marley to a stereotype. The release of the filter on 420 Day, an unofficial day to celebrate Marijuana, also incensed the PC righteous because they felt it diminished Marley’s other talents by focusing on his well-known adoration and support of Marijuana.

OK, PC freaks, get over yourselves. Bob Marley was Black. Any image of Marley should be Black, and if a White person superimposes that image over their own it shouldn’t automatically be construed as “racist.” In fact, chances are that 99 percent of people using this filter love Bob Marley, his music and even his love of pot, and in no way are trying to insult his Blackness or anything else for that matter.

In fact, get over the whole “Blackface” thing—the days of the minstrel are long over, and the vast majority of people who utilize Blackface these days as part of a costume are not doing it in any way to purposely insult Black folks.

As for the release of the filter on 420 Day, get over that one, too, because Bob Marley is one of the historical proponents of Marijuana usage and legalization and should be honored on such a day. In no way does this diminish his musical talents or cultural achievements.

Finally, the filter was created in partnership with the Bob Marley estate, so this kind of makes all of the PC crowd’s complaints utterly moot and worthless.

While the above marks yet another case of PC inanity, the politically correct unfortunately managed to score two victories this week.

ESPN caved in to PC pressure and fired baseball analyst Curt Schilling due to a meme and comments he posted on his Facebook page. You can see the meme to the right, and among his comments were: “A man is a man no matter what they call themselves. I don’t care what they are, who they sleep with, men’s room was designed for the penis, women’s not so much. Now you need laws telling us differently? Pathetic.”

Unreal. If bullshit like this keeps up, no one will feel comfortable expressing his or her opinions about anything anymore….

A PC victory was also scored this week with the U.S. Department of Treasury, which made all the right PC moves in its planned revamping of the $20 bill. That is replacing a racist ex-president with a Black, feminist, abolitionist hero.

Unlike the first PC victory, I don’t really have a problem with this one. While Andrew Jackson was a pretty decent president and war hero, he was also kind of prick and a racist, what with being pro-slavery and the architect behind the Trail of Tears, which resulted in the death of thousands of Indians. And Ms. Tubman was a hero deserving of respect, helping to save thousands from slavery, and working to help secure the right of women to vote.

But man, I hope they can find a halfway decent image of her. I mean, talk about a scowl—her visage is the grumpy, outraged face I picture, whether White or Black, whenever I read or hear the pontifications of pompous PC potentates.

—Originally published on behalf of Hash It Out on its Facebook page

Free Speech Imperilled by Campus Political Correctness

Posted on April 19, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Political Correctness, Social Commentary • Tagged 1984, DePaul University, Donald Trump, First Amendment, free speech, freedom of speech, Political Correctness, politically correct, safe spaces, speech codes, trigger warnings, U.S. Constitution, University of Wisconsin-Madison • 1 Comment

—April 19, 2015

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment is my favorite part of the U.S. Constitution. Not the amendment’s opening part. I mean, I believe in the free exercise of religion, but kind of hope no more religions are “established” as the ones already established cause enough trouble in the world. And that part about petitioning the government is kind of worthless, cause you can petition about your grievances until the cows come home, but good luck receiving any redress.

It’s the “freedom of speech, or of the press,” part of this amendment that stirs my soul, and the one I have actively supported since my rabble-rousing youth. It is the reason I rail against political correctness, which is so often used to furtively stifle free speech and oppress critical thinking.

To this day I believe the U.S. Supreme Court did the right thing by defending flag burning as freedom of expression. While I personally disagree with burning Old Glory, the fact that it is allowed as a form of expression is part of what makes America great.

I also find various garbage proclaimed as “art,” such as works by Robert Maplethorpe and others of his ilk, to be offensive; however, its public display, no matter how loathsome, is worthy of first amendment protection, too.

In my rabble-rousing youth, university and college campuses were bastions of free speech. On just about any given day you were likely to find all points of view expressed on any number of issues, not to mention plenty of public “bad taste” antics and other questionable displays by fraternal organizations and other social groups. All without any real fuss or overt animosity between competing factions or diametrically opposed interest groups. Students tended to discuss divisive issues, but for the most part did not try to suppress ideas and speech they did not agree with.

So I’ve got to ask: What the fuck happened?

How is it that in the span of roughly one generation, the ideal of free speech has been cast aside by most institutions of higher learning, with the apparent full support of a majority of professors and students?

Students aren’t taught about “freedom of speech,” because they are now being taught “freedom from speech.” Universities, colleges and many of their students seem to be focused on limiting just about any speech that might possibly cause offence, and stifling ideas that may run contrary to specific students’ beliefs. And with the emphasis on trigger warnings, safe spaces, microaggressions, speech codes, privilege of various sorts, and other popular politically correct taglines, “debate” is obviously now a foreign concept on campuses. Instead, students are being taught how to engage in “goodthink.”

Consider in just the past 10 days:

DePaul University enacted a ban on students chalking political messages on campus sidewalks because of the “offensive, hurtful, and divisive” nature of pro-Donald Trump chalking.

The State University of New York at New Paltz abruptly canceled a planned campus debate between a notable left-wing media critic and a notable right-wing media critic on “How the Media Can Sway Votes and Win Elections.” Certainly sounds like a well-balanced debate on an important issue. Unfortunately, one of the debaters had “extreme” right wing views, according to complaints lodged by at least one professor and several unidentified students. Can’t have that, now can we. . . even if balanced out by another speaker on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

Campus police forced University of Delaware students to censor a giant inflatable “free speech beach ball,” because someone had drawn a picture of a penis on the ball, along with the word “penis.” The students, who were promoting free speech values, were advised that campus speech codes and sexual harassment policies overrode any rights to free expression. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and Young Americans for Liberty both issued protests to university administrators advising them that the campus police were infringing upon the students’ First Amendment rights.

And how about this for complete irony:

About 700 professors and students at the University of Wisconsin-Madison signed letters complaining about racism from campus police and administrators, and demanding that a student arrested for spray-painting graffiti on scores of campus buildings be given clemency for his actions and be allowed to graduate on time this May. The letters allege that police engaged in racism by interrupting an Afro-American studies class when they arrested the student vandal, and that administrators are guilty of promoting racism because they were more interested in protecting campus buildings than students—such as the vandal—who are fighting for social change.

The student vandal’s fight for social change included graffiti on 11 different buildings with such messages as: “THE DEVIL IZ A WHITE MAN,” “DEATH TO PIGZ,” “WHITE SUPREMACY IZ A DISEASE,” AND “FUCK THE POLICE,” among others.

Unbelievably, both the chief of campus police and university chancellor have issued statements of apology over the incident, with both vowing to review police practices. I wouldn’t be surprised if the vandal ends up serving as the university’s valedictorian during the upcoming graduation ceremonies.

So, Hash It Out: Is the politically correct induced dissolution of the First Amendment on campuses turning American universities batshit crazy?

—Published April 19 in Hash It Out!

Just Call Me “Janella!”

Posted on April 16, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Political Correctness, Social Commentary • Tagged 1984, male privilege, microaggression, politically correct, privilege, Social Justice Warrior, straight privilege, thin privilege, white privilege • Leave a comment

—April 16, 2016

Hallelujah! I have seen the light and now realize the long-term error of my ways….

I will no longer engage in behaviour that diminishes or demeans marginalized people and cultures, and will cleanse my speech of microaggressions that might prove insulting to anyone. I will use trigger warnings on anything I write in the future that could possibly cause undue stress or apprehension to those with fragile constitutions. I will promote and protect “safe spaces” to ensure that marginalized people and groups are not threatened by any streams of thought that might prove contrary to their own beliefs. I will vigorously support the ideals of multiculturalism, and publicly humiliate those who engage in cultural appropriation. And I will strive to only engage in “goodthink,” so as to help foster the social justice ideal of “Ingsoc.”

That’s right folks, I am bound and determined to become a militant, politically correct, social justice warrior. And, yes, from perusing the righteous and socially conscious websites of politically correct organizations and social justice activists, I do realize that it’s an especially tall order to fill.

I mean, how can I ever achieve political correctness with so much “privilege?”

Think about it: I’ve got “Male” privilege, “White” privilege, “Straight” privilege, “Thin” privilege, “Ability” privilege, “Class” privilege, “Western” privilege, “Christian” privilege, “Neurotypical” privilege, “Gender-Clarity” privilege, “Blue-Eyes” privilege, and probably other privileges of which I may not yet even be aware.

In short, I must be the most privileged mo-fo around.

And, as militant social justice folks who strictly follow the dictates of political correctness know, the day-to-day benefits I receive from these unearned privileges result in the day-to-day oppression and disenfranchisement of those who do not have these privileges—my privilege is their living hell!

Thus, in order to become truly politically correct, I must exorcise these privileges from my life. So here’s what I’m going to do:

I am transitioning into a woman (“Janella” is my new name, by the way). There, in one fell swoop I have knocked out a whole bunch of privileges. I no longer have “Male” privilege because I am now a woman (“hear me roar!”). I no longer have “Straight” privilege because I’m just not into boys and will have to be a “lesbian” woman. “Gender-Clarity” privilege is obviously gone. And I’m just going to assume that if I am confused about my gender then I am probably not thinking clearly with regard to other aspects of life, so this serves to nullify the “Neurotypical” privilege, too.
Thanks to the adoption of “self-identification” as a tenet of political correctness, I now identify as “African-American,” eliminating the “White” privilege. And yes, the white skin is a bit of a problem, but guess what? I’m an “albino” African-American,” which I believe obviates the “Ability” privilege because albinism is a disability of sorts. And not only am I African-American, but I am now a Muslim African-American, which takes care of that pesky “Christian” privilege.
Given all of the above, I don’t believe that there’s any way I can still be considered to possess “Class” and “Western” privilege, but I’ll leave that for the PC potentates to decide.
“Blue-Eyes” privilege? Well, I’m thinking I’ll have to go with colored—oops, I mean “tinted”—contact lenses.
And that leaves “Thin” privilege… Not sure how I’m going to handle this one. I thought about maybe eating burgers like Wimpy, so as to gain some quick girth and poundage, but eating meat like that just seems so anti-PC. This one is a conundrum, as I certainly don’t want my svelte figure to be the cause of distress to those who may be generously proportioned. Beaucoup tofu, perhaps?

Anyhow, what with now being a Black-Lesbo-Hajihead-Gimped-Tranny, I have clearly eliminated the bulk of my privileges and am definitely on the path to political correct enlightenment.

Just call me “Janella—Social Justice Queen!”

Hitting the Water With Old-School Virtual Reality

Posted on April 14, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Books, Sailing • Tagged Books, nautical, Nova Scotia, Reading, Sailing • 2 Comments

—April 14, 2016

It snowed over the weekend. Only about four inches, but enough to put a damper on the notion that we might have an early spring this year. The forecast for the coming week does not look promising as far as the boatyard doing much launching this week. Not that it really matters given that it’s the unholy tax filing month, and with my dual American-Canadian status I get double filing detail. Sigh….

Nevertheless, I’m itching to get on the water, anxious to feel the wind across my cheek as I hoist up the sails for the first time of the season. Alas, with no boat in the water, the inclement weather, work and taxes it looks like I will not be on the water until May. Oh well, guess I will need to scratch my sailing itch with a bit of virtual reality.

Yep, nothing like a good nautical book to tide me over while I contend with the symptoms of sailing withdrawal. I am not aware of any recent tales of nautical brilliance, but I love my selection of tried and true reads. And if you love a good nautical book as much as me, then I suggest you peruse my library and try out any one of these fantastic reads:

Godforsaken Sea: The True Story of a Race Through the World’s Most Dangerous Waters

Derek Lundy

This book tried to keep me up all night, but the sun came up before I finished it—oops, I guess it was an all-nighter! Fantastic read that details just about everything one needs to know about what it is like to participate in the Vendee Globe, the round-the-world, single-handed yacht race considered among the most gruelling competitions of all racing sports. If you want to get the sense of what it’s like to sail in the “Roaring 40s” this book is for you. And yes, it was so good that I have read it again during daylight hours.

Northern Lights

Desmond Holdridge

Good luck finding a copy of this book, as it’s been out of print for decades, though a limited edition of some hundred or so was published a few years ago on behalf of the widow of a member of the Cruising Club of America. Somehow a copy ended up in my hands, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that this true story began literally across the harbour from my dock. In short, a young man looking for a last youthful adventure prior to settling down, buys a 30-foot sloop from a local Nova Scotia boat builder, and, with two other adventurers, sets sail with the intention of reaching the top of Labrador. Beautifully written, the tale details the hazards of such a journey, along with the day-to-day difficulties of undertaking such a voyage with the rudimentary gear, supplies and limited nautical knowledge of the crew. Three disparate personalities trapped on such a small space in sometimes dire circumstances plays a role in the tale, too. This book totally needs to be re-published.

The Perfect Storm: A True Story of Man Against the Sea

Sebastian Junger

Yeah, yeah, you probably saw the movie starring George Clooney. The book, which provides a detailed analysis of a massive storm system and its effects on a small New England-based swordfish longliner, puts the movie to shame. It was a up-half-the-night, one-sitting read the first time I read it, and equally enjoyable the second time.

Sailing Alone Around the World

Joshua Slocum

If you love the idea of casting off from your dock to leave your life as you know it for an extended voyage of life at sea while you explore the world, then why haven’t you read this classic book about the first person to sail around the world solo?

To Rule the Waves: How the British Navy Shaped the Modern World

Arthur Herman

If you love nautical history, along with history in general, this tome perfectly describes how Britain’s Royal Navy helped England become a world power and shape the world as we know it today. Another hard-to-put-down read, it pretty much consists of one-seafaring tale after another, combined with insights on how each of the localized incidents at sea reverberated across the oceans to affect the course of other interactions by man and governments.

As I’ve only read this one once, I think I just found my pick. However, my bookshelves are filled with dozens of other great seafaring reads. Guess I’m going to have to revisit this topic in a future blog. Until then, just grab any of the above books—trust me, you’ll feel like you’re on the water.

—Originally published April 13 by Slidemoor

Just Another ‘Assault’ on the Trump Campaign Trail….

Posted on April 5, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Politics • Tagged assault, Bernie Sanders, Brietbert, Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, pepper spray, Presidential Campaign, Trump Rally, video evidence • 1 Comment

–April 5, 2016

The word “assault” seems to be a tagline of the Donald Trump campaign of late, as numerous incidents of assault have been alleged over the past month at various campaign events, with the press stirring the pot with overheated reporting on each supposed event. Of the three primary “assault” incidents receiving the most press coverage, only one deserves to be termed “assault,” one is utter bullshit, and the third represents a case in which the alleged “victim” is actually the assailant.

The first one is easy: On March 9, 78-year-old John McGraw sucker punched a protester who was being led out of a Fayetteville, NC Trump campaign rally by law enforcement. Anyone who’s seen the video will have to agree that it was essentially an unprovoked assault and that McGraw should have been (and was) arrested…or—for those who believe one good punch deserves a like-minded rebuttal—been punched right back by the protestor. No doubt about this one whatsoever—it was an assault.

The second assault, and the one receiving the most coverage, concerns Breitbert news reporter Michelle Fields charge that Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbed her by the arm and “nearly threw her to the ground.” And when I say “press coverage,” I mean a ludicrous level of coverage, aided in part by all the other candidates piling on the bandwagon insisting that Trump should fire the campaign manager for the egregious assault.

Horse-fucking-feathers, I say…. If that incident constitutes “assault” then that bird that landed on the podium in front of Bernie Sanders last Friday was an assassination attempt.

Anyone looking at the video of the incident can see that the campaign manager pulls the journalist away from Trump with about the same force that she was using on the candidate in an effort to make him stop and answer a question. And this after two clear entreaties were made by the Secret Service to please step back from the candidate. The “nearly thrown to the ground” part of the allegation is equally bogus, as she hardly misses a beat in turning around to continue her pursuit of Trump.

As Donald Trump said, “nothing there,” and yes, if that incident is supposed to be an assault, then Trump should file charges against the reporter for her assault on him. The fact that charges have been laid at all is absurd, and is indicative of how…I don’t know…how America is becoming a nation of whiny crybabies (but I guess I’ll save that for another rant).

Oh, and while unsubstantiated, some (admittedly right wing) news sources are now reporting that the “victim” is a serial filer of assault charges, with charges filed against five different people over the years, but with all being dropped.

The third assault incident seemed to be on the verge of garnering massive press coverage, with initial headlines referring to the poor victim as a “teen” or “15-year-old girl,” who was groped and pepper sprayed at a Trump rally in Wisconsin. The story had all the makings of a press-frenzied black eye for Trump, but seems to have been quickly discarded and forgotten. Perhaps because numerous videos have emerged that show that the alleged victim is actually the aggressor and probably deserved to be pepper sprayed.

The incident was videoed by numerous people in the crowd, and can be viewed as it unfolds from just about every angle. From everything I’ve seen in the videos the girl is aggressively arguing with an older man, gets more and more agitated and starts heaving her girth at him while getting more and more agitated. The man is obviously trying to back away from her, but is stymied by the crowd. The man’s hands are up in the air as if to say I don’t want any part of you, and then she starts screaming about how he had groped her (ahem, “total bullshit!”). And then she hauls off and sucker punches him in the face, and someone else in the crowd (rightfully) nails her with pepper spray.

I say rightfully because all video evidence shows her to be the aggressor, and it’s obvious that the man accused of groping was only trying to get away from the belligerent cow. She sucker punched him and got hit back in return—end of story. At least it should be….

Oh, and for the record, I did not write this in support of Trump, I wrote it in support of “truth.” Something that will undoubtedly get in shorter supply as this race continues to unfold.

—Originally published April 1 in Hash It Out!

The Government Doesn’t Owe You Anything!—So, Earn It Yourself

Posted on March 27, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Social Commentary • Tagged college education, free college education, free ride, Generations, government, Millennials, Spongebob SquarePants, Taxes • Leave a comment

—March 27, 2016

So I’m watching a news blurb on how Millennials are more idealistic than their parents. And, yes, watching because I’m trying to determine whether there’s any substance to the story, because usually such “generational” stories are full of subjective bullshit (please see March 21 blog: “Are You Really A ‘Millennial?’”).

And then some weird graphic comes on the screen. I believe it’s the “Spongebob SquarePants” crab character, and he’s getting showered with money. The graphic states: “Many Millennials also believe the government should guarantee jobs and a high standard of living.”

Bing! I’m riled up, pissed right off, and ready to rant!

OK, you spoiled little Millennial twats…exactly why should the government “guarantee” jobs and a “high standard of living?” Why does the government owe you anything? What in your short little, meaningless lives thus far, have the bulk of you contributed to humanity, let alone to the country, state, county and city/town that supported you while you were growing up?

What exactly is it that makes you entitled to a guaranteed job and a high standard of living?

And let me pause here to note that I’m not just ranting at Millennials (and seriously doubt that the stupid graphic I’m referencing represents any “truth”), but am more ranting at anyone who believes that “the government” owes them anything beyond the bare basics as supported by the hard-earned tax dollars provided to the government in return. Those bare basics being:

defence (military)
security/safety (police/fire)
K-12 education
a bit of support for those truly in need
infrastructure that ensures smooth flow of transportation, energy and communications.
and yeah, maybe some help on the healthcare front (I’m kind of half-Canadian now, and partially believe in the merits of socialized medicine).

Anything beyond these basics is “gravy,” and I don’t understand why so many people believe that the government owes them so much more….

OK, so taxes might be a bit on the high side, but most of the people clamouring for “more” tend to be those paying the least. And if you’re not really paying anything into the system, well, then, piss right off and try to show just a bit of gratitude for what you are getting (i.e., the basics).

Let me make one last point: I’m pretty sure that those Millennials and others who might believe that the government should “guarantee jobs and a high standard of living,” also ascribe to the notion that the government should provide free college education to all.

Well, the government already provides support to those wanting a college education…. That is, support for those who’ve earned it. While not a “free ride,” the government provides generous college education support for those who serve in the military.

So, go “earn” your college-level education, and then pursue that job and high standard of living. But please, don’t expect the government to just give it to you.

—Originally published in Hash It Out! March 25

Be Like Mr. Spock and Hash It Out With Logic in Mind

Posted on March 25, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Uncategorized • Tagged Argument, Aristotle, Fallacies, Greek Philosophers, Logic, Mr. Spock, Star Trek • Leave a comment

“If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be truth.”

—Mr. Spock, Science Officer/Second Officer; USS Enterprise

So you’re hashing-it-out with your buddy, who seems to have the upper hand and is poised to win the argument, but then you flatly state, “most illogical,” refute the tenets of his argument with ease, and then counter with your own logical brilliance, which proves beyond reproach and not subject to further dispute.

Sound far-fetched?

Well, it doesn’t have to be. All you have to do is be like Spock, and make sure that your side of the argument is logically structured….

OK, so that may prove to be a a stretch, but at the least you should be able to refute any fallacies within your opponent’s argument, which in turn should makes your position in the argument that much stronger. And guess what, fallacies tend to run rampant within context of most everyone (especially politicians) trying to make a case. The key is in being able to A) recognize a fallacy when utilized by your sparring partner, and B) then being able to swiftly articulate how the fallacy renders their side of the argument moot.

And, you didn’t hear it from me, but…familiarity with fallacies will allow you to utilize them when trying to bolster your own piss-poor excuse for an argument.

A fallacy is the use of “invalid” or otherwise “faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument. While some fallacies are committed intentionally in order to manipulate or deceive, many are construed by accident due to carelessness or ignorance.

Fallacies were originally identified by the ancient Greek philosophers, who basically spent their time drinking Greek wine, chasing peplos and hashing out every topic conceivable, from “what is the meaning of life?” to “does the soul reside in the heart or the mind?” to “what would be the best way to get Aphrodite into bed.” While today we at Hash-It-Out! are arguing about who would win the match up between Superman and Batman, some 2,400 years ago Aristotle and his buddies were undoubtedly arguing about who would win the matchup between Ares and Poseidon.

Fallacies can either be “formal” or informal. An argument based on a formal fallacy is always considered wrong, and can be proved so mathematically, while an informal fallacy may have a valid logical form, but may render the argument unsound due to a false premise. While there are less than two dozen recognized formal fallacies, there are more than 50 informal fallacies and numerous sub-variations of these fallacies.

Perhaps one of the most recognized formal fallacies is that of “affirming the consequent,” which mathematically is represented as:

If X then Y
2. Y
Therefore X

Or to put it in prose:

If it rains my car will get wet.
My car is wet.
Therefore, it rained.

This represents a logical fallacy because it does not account for other possibilities. While the conclusion is an all likelihood true, something else—say, the neighborhood brat with a water balloon—could have caused the car to get wet.

While formal fallacies crop up in arguments, you are probably more likely to face an informal fallacy while you hash it out. In fact, you are undoubtedly already familiar with quite a few of them. Consider these:

Red herring—irrelevant subject matter inserted into the argument to draw attention away from the true subject of the argument.

The straw man—basing an argument on a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.

Ad hominem (to the man)—attacking the opponent instead of the argument.

Appeal to authority—asserting something as true due to the position or authority of the person who asserted it.

Argument from ignorance—Assuming a truth because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Begging the question—providing the conclusion of an argument as the premise.

Appeal to emotion—argument through a manipulation of emotions, rather than through valid reasoning (this one’s gotta sound quite familiar to all of you guys with girlfriends and wives—Doh! I’m gonna catch it from the girls for this note!).

Argumentum verbosium (proof by verbosity)—one of my personal favorites, in which the speaker utilizes so much jargon and obscure information that the audience is forced to accept the argument in lieu of admitting ignorance or lack of understanding.

So, know that you have a basic understanding about fallacies and logical reasoning, you might want to study up some more before you try to be like Mister Spock.

You can check out this website—Thoushaltnotcommitlogicalfallacies.com—for a more detailed primer on fallacies, or just Google “fallacy” to see what you come up with.

—Originally published March 22 in Hash It Out!

Are You Really a Millennial?

Posted on March 21, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Social Commentary • Tagged Baby Boomers, Baby Bust, Echo Generation, Gen. X, Gen. Y, Gen. Z, Generation X, Generation Y, Generation Z, Generations, Millennial, Millennials • 1 Comment

—March 21, 2016

Are you a Millennial, a member of what is also referred to as Generation Y?

If you said “yes,” I have to ask, “how can you be sure?”

How do you know that you’re not a Gen. Xer? Or, on the other end of the spectrum, a member of the onrushing Generation Z?

Who or what defined you as Millennial, and under what authority? Or perhaps you “self-identified” (which seems to be quite popular within all matrixes of “identification” in the 21st Century).

I ask because journalists, market researchers and so-called generational experts spout off about “Millennials” ad nauseam, and yet few of them take the time to explain exactly how they determined what constitutes a Millennial, if they bother to delineate the generation at all.

Quick question: what are the Millennial birth years?

Ask 10 different people that question, and I’ll bet you get 10 different answers. You will also find a wide variety of birth-span ranges should you read 25 assorted Gen. Y-related news stories, market research reports or insights into the mind of the “Millennial” by an “expert.”

The same applies to a much greater extent with Generation X, the most maligned U.S. generation of the last 100 years. Let’s see, “Slacker Generation,” “Generation Me,” “Baby Bust,” and other negative monikers are often used to describe this generation. All undeserved, I must add.

For the record, I have the creds to debate this issue, because when I’m not writing for several other web sites and providing editorial consulting for various clients, I work as a demographic researcher.

And let me tell you, most of what you might read about Generations X, Y and Z is fraught with unsubstantiated opinions and likely not based on any substantive objective research.

Why, you ask?

Because few of the so-called experts delineate the generations or, when they do, explain any justification for their delineation. And, absent clearcut, logical delineation, objectivity is essentially rendered moot.

Consider this first in relation to the Baby Boomer generation, which was–for marketing purposes–the most studied generation in American history…up until the advent of Gen. Y.

Pretty much everyone agrees that the Boomers’ birth-year span started in around 1945/46 and ended in 1964/65, and that the generation’s birth range consisted of 20 years, which has historically been accepted as standard for delineating a generation.

But then came the Xers and that axiom was thrown out the door. I have seen Generation X delineated with as few as seven years, and have seen them described as starting in 1960, when most everyone believes that Boomers were still in full-production swing. I have seen more than 50 different delineations of Gen. X, in various articles and reports, with only about 25 percent making any logical sense.

Especially given that so many of the experts compare and contrast the generations. And, if the generations being compared are given different numbers for their birth-year spans then of course the comparisons are going to be flawed. Most of the “experts” talk about how small Gen. X is compared to the Boomers, but most of these “experts” only give the Xers a 10- to 15-year birth span, and sometimes, less.

Duh…. If you’re going to compare 15, 10 or less years of a generation’s births to 20 years of births, the generation in question is going to be comparatively smaller.

But, for the record, the X birth numbers were small. If you give Gen. X the standard 20-years of births and “logically” follow the Boomers by beginning the generation in about 1965, then yes, by births Gen. X was about 9 million smaller than the Baby Boomers. But guess what? Add a little time and a lot of immigrants to the equation and Generation X numbers almost grew as large as those of the boomers.

All this to say that the delineation of Generation Y, the Millennials, is all fucked up because the “experts” played around with Gen. X so much. I’ve seen Generation Y described as being born between 1980 and 2000, or 1985 to 2006, 1990 to 2002, and even 1977 to 1993. But at least they occasionally get a 20-year time span, though usually less, and sometimes more.

And just to complicate things further, the “experts” are already pontificating about Generation Z, waxing poetic about the characteristics of this still-emerging generation. And these characteristics are all over the map: “Least likely to believe that there is such a thing as the American Dream.” “More risk averse than the Millennials.” “Have a digital bond to the internet.” “Tend to be independent.” “Expect to find a job that will be an expression of their identity.”

A Job! Really…?

According to what would be the most logical delineation based on a sequential following of the Boomer Generation, the oldest members of Gen. Z are only 11-years-old, and I seriously doubt that these 11-year-olds are already pondering their future employment.

Oh, and some of these pundits are also asserting that Gen. Z is the largest generation currently alive in America, and/or the largest American generation ever, but I would surmise that these generational geniuses are either using an especially broad birth range, or just haven’t bothered to actually count the population numbers according to the delineation being used.

I believe that the lack of a universally accepted delineation of the generations is largely due to researchers and marketers liking it that way. It lets them move the goalposts in order to shift populations in order to fit particular preconceived premises, and then absolves them from any blame should their generational theories prove wrong.

So, next time you read an article about Gen. Y, X or Z, take note of whether the author has bothered to delineate them by noting their generational age span or birth-date range. If so, try to determine if it makes sense, and that the given time frames work in relation to other generations. If not, treat the article with the same skepticism you should be giving to the vast majority of 21st Century U.S. Politicians.

Oh, and for the record, the logical delineation of Generations X, Y and Z based upon sequentially following the Boomers with the standard 20-year generational time frame is as follows:

Generation X—born between 1965 and 1984 and currently aged 32 to 51 (est. U.S. population of 82.9 million).
Generation Y—born Between 1985 and 2004 and currently aged 12 to 31 (est. U.S. population of 86.6 million).
Generation Z—born between 2005 and the still-to-come 2024, and currently aged 0 to 11 (est. U.S. population of 40.4 million).

–M.J. Moye

Brilliant Skiing Ruined by Caustic Comment

Posted on March 19, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Social Commentary • Tagged Couloir, Jackson Hole, Ski, Ski Jumps, Skiing, Walrus • Leave a comment

So my 12-year-old son and I are on the Marmot chair lift. Not really chatting a lot because my son has reached that pivotal age at which boys figure out that adults are really, really boring.

We are crossing a couloir, which is a deep, snow-filled gully ripe for skiers way braver than I who are eager to take on its 170-degree walls, half-exposed rocks, wayward trees, and natural ramps and jumps. Two relatively tepid and timid snowboarders are making their way down when one aborts a jump by trying to veer off its summit, but ends up in a heap astride its peak—becoming a “Walrus” (a term we use to describe a snowboarder “at rest”).

Our chair passes over them as his companion says something along the lines of “are you OK?” but we can’t make out the muffled reply. The downed walrus seems a bit shaken, but starts shuffling himself off the small peak when we look up the mountain slope to see a skier racing down in a high-speed slalom toward the couloir.

Not even the hint of a pause—and trust me, I would stop at the edge and give long thought before making a descent—and the skier makes 20 feet of ever-so-graceful air before flawlessly dropping into the gully.

His skiing is beautiful and leaves me breathless, and my son and I both pivot in the chair to watch as he speeds underneath us and towards…

…the jump where the still-on-his-knees walrus has half-way scuttled off the bump, but stalled not knowing whether to go right or left because the brilliant skier is heading towards him at light speed. There is enough room for the skier to make the jump but he aborts by skirting the walrus on the other side. And then we hear it:

“Get out of the way, Dickhead!” says the skier, in a loud, nasally voice of spoiled contempt.

The skier is instantly no longer brilliant, no longer among the finest artistry in motion on that mountain.

My son looks at me, mouth wide open, with an expression best described as, well, a “12-year-old’s aghast,” though by no means feigned.

“Dad,” he sputters. “What a— He was… Dad, he was the ‘Dickhead,” he stammers referring to the hotshot skier.

Normally, I might have been inclined to rebuke my son about the use of such inappropriate language, but given that he may have learned it from me to begin with, and I totally agreed with him at that moment, I refrain (though I do have to chastise him later when he re-tells the story to his aunt and calls the Hotshot a “douce bag”).

“I hope he breaks his leg,” my son then adds.

And at this point I’m struggling, because I’m kind of wrestling with similar thoughts. But I pull back and give my son the twin spiels about how two wrongs don’t make a right, and that wishing such thoughts about bad people only brings us down to their level. And I probably did so with a similar lame level of eloquence as displayed here.

I also had to give Hotshot a bit of leeway because A) some skiers despise Walruses; B) Hotshot may not have realized that Walrus had wiped out; and, C) Walruses often flop down right where they shouldn’t.

Anyhow, while I’m not sure whether my words had an impact, that moment has stayed with my son, as it has with me…still dwelling on it two days later.

On several occasions while paused during a descent or waiting in a lift line, my son has nudged me in the ribs to ask, “is that him?”

“Who,” I reply.

“You know, the…’Jerk'” (though he sometimes tests me with the other term).

And I look, spot the indicated target, and determine that it isn’t him (who had been quite distinctive with incredible skiing finesse, red hair {Yeah, Hotshots don’t need helmets}, red bandana and an olive, check-patterned parka).

As for myself, I think I’m dwelling on it because of the utter lack of civility. There was just no cause at all for the Hotshot’s comment. The jump was nothing in the grand scheme of this mountain’s challenges, and puppychow in relation to the air the Hotshot had just caught moments before. Hotshot had the space to take the jump, and plenty of room on the other side of Walrus. And, for all Hotshot knew, Walrus could have been injured.

I don’t know, what had been a brilliant moment turned ugly in an instant with a simple, undeserved utterance. That lack of civility, that stupid caustic comment, was just so unnecessary.

And perhaps such a bellwether of the lack of American grace in the 21st Century….

Whatever Happened to “Black is Beautiful?”

Posted on March 4, 2016 by mjmoye • Posted in Political Correctness, Social Commentary • Tagged African American, black, IHOP, Nina Simone, Outrage • Leave a comment

—March 4, 2016

What’s with Americans wanting to be outraged all the time? Is it just me or does it seem like Americans across the country are perceiving everything as a possible insult or disparagement.

Black folks seem to be especially touchy of late, what with a light-skinned black actress playing Nina Simone in an upcoming biopic feature film stirring up the latest outrage….

And, oops, I may have just made a major faux pas, as I referred to them as “Black” rather than “African American.” But sorry, I refuse to use “African American,” as most Black Americans are about as “African” as a German Shepard is “German.”

Or to put it another way, if I were insulted by being called “White” and insisted upon being referenced to by a moniker based on my ancestors, then I’d be an English-French-German-Scottish-Spanish-Dutch-Acadian-American-American (please note that the “American-American” part of that description is due to some Native American blood in my line).

And I’m about as English, French, German, Scottish, Spanish, Dutch or Acadian as a German Shepard is “German.”

All in all, pretty ludicrous, eh?

So earlier this week a Black couple stopped into an IHOP restaurant in Texas to pick up a to-go order, and were “stunned” to find the words “BLACK PPL” printed on the receipt, apparently as a means of identifying who the take-out order was for.

The couple took great offense at being called “Black,” raised a ruckus on social media, contacted the news media, and garnered a quick public apology from IHOP and a firing of the wait staff who had erred by identifying the couple as “Black.” Because apparently calling Black folks “Black,” is racist…even if you happen to be Black yourself, which the poor waiter was.

Well, Rolman Sparkman, one-half of the aggrieved couple who contacted the media about the alleged slur, said the most “shocking” thing about the incident was that the waiter was “Black.” Though apparently Sparkman had no qualms about calling the waiter “Black.”

The fired waiter, Dwayne Williams, attributed his use of “BLACK PPL” instead of getting the couple’s actual names to the restaurant being especially busy at that time, and said he certainly did not mean to cause offence, and, “as a Black Prince myself,” was not being racist.

No word yet on whether the couple is planning to file a lawsuit alleging egregious harm and all manner of mental trauma due to the racist insult.

Which begs the question(s), would being called “Black” hold up in court as a racist epithet? Since when has “Black” been considered racist? And, whatever happened to “Black Power” and “Black is Beautiful?”

Biting the Bullet

Scire tuum nihil est, nisi te scire hoc sciat alter

Hitting the Water With Old-School Virtual Reality

Just Another ‘Assault’ on the Trump Campaign Trail….

Be Like Mr. Spock and Hash It Out With Logic in Mind