Ahmed Khalil was shot at point-blank range after being accosted by men in police uniforms, according to his neighbours in the al-Dura area of Baghdad.
Campaign groups have warned of a surge in homophobic killings by state security services and religious militias following an anti-gay and anti-lesbian fatwa issued by Iraq's most prominent Shia leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
(Via Unknown Country.)
Why homophobia? I mean, really -- what's going on? We see plenty of bumper-stickers rightfully condemning it, yet it reigns nonetheless, like some super-resilient psychoactive virus. Sometimes I think "straight" activists who speak out against gay-bashing do so for reasons more ego-driven than compassionate. We all like to look good; we all want to be seen saying the right thing. This certainly doesn't invalidate the mainstream's fight against homophobia, but it makes me scope out the landscape with amplified cynicism -- partly, I guess, because I'm too often steeped in my own very private universe (which is seldom welcoming to strangers of any sexual orientation).
Pundits who decry transhumanism -- and their numbers are increasing -- prefer a static future governed by the same inexplicable prejudices that have plagued attempts to subvert the status quo for centuries. We're implicitly asked to accept the very concept of prejudice as something contemptible but all-too-human. As prejudice (racial, sexual or otherwise) shows absolutely no sign of going anywhere, I feel it's incumbent upon us to edit it out of our psychological repertoire. What better way to do this than forego humanity as we know it in favor of something better?
If nothing else, the mutable, chimeric nature of a posthuman future promises to make establishing prejudices inherently difficult; with a galaxy waiting to be explored, we may ultimately just get bored with the whole thing. And it will be about time.
7 comments:
Pundits who decry transhumanism -- and their numbers are increasing -- prefer a static future governed by the same inexplicable prejudices that have plagued attempts to subvert the status quo for centuries.
And that is precisely my problem with Luddite-types; I mean, it's one thing to oppose transhumanism because you think it's fantasy or the practicalities are non-trivial. It's another thing entirely to just reject it altogether because humanity-as-is is so fucking great. Humans are born and we die and we do so hating large chunks of everything that isn't us every step of the way.
As prejudice (racial, sexual or otherwise) shows absolutely no sign of going anywhere, I feel it's incumbent upon us to edit it out of our psychological repertoire.
Exactly! But can you imagine the opposition that would arise if the techniques for this actually came to be?
This is one of the many reasons I find "fundamentalists" so exasperating. *This* is the best your god could do!? We're in *his* image!? Good grief -- we're doomed!
I think that the middle east is suffering not so much from homophobia as it is from what I call "westernophobia" -- that is, fear of being influenced and corrupted by the western world and its profound disregard for morality (or its profoundly superficial morality). I'm not prejudiced against homosexuals, but underlying western attitudes of tolerance there is, I think, an oversensitivity to intrusions on one's own privacy. In other words, we in the west (and perhaps especially here in the U.S.) have grown too sensitive about stepping on one another's toes. The "right to be happy" has become the one principle to be recognized and upheld. All other values are jettisoned in its favor. I'll have to give this one more thought, but my gut tells me that it's not a good thing.
Anyway, IMO the folks over in the middle east are paranoid about becoming westernized in the above manner. In order to feel protected they've made themselves hyper-aware of *any* signs that the contagion of the west might be catching in their own culture. Hence if they suspect any from among themselves, for instance, of being homosexual (and they know OUR attitude regarding homosexuality -- namely, that we generally give it our blessing), those early indicators of moral decline will immediately be stamped out (i.e., killed). I think they are developing a similar reaction to many other symptoms of creeping westernization, such as our laxity in matters of dress, our flippant attitude toward marriage (divorce and remarriage are easy, even common over here), women's rights and the propogation of sacrilegious ideas and attitudes.
Mac, I don't know if talking about prejudices concerning these killings is actually reasonable.
Are you kidding? This kid is dead because of pure toxic, entrenched prejudice. Certainly the term "prejudice" can encompass different behaviors and traits depending on cultural context, but a trend we see repeatedly is the deliberate marginalization of minorities -- women, children, gays, whatever. This is prejudice.
Nevertheless it's interesting how you seem to take prejudice for a totally evil thing which we should edit OUT of our minds (I shudder to think how this editting would be conducted).
If you think I'm advocating some sort of mass purge, forget it. I see this "editing" as a dynamic, consensual process -- not some ideologically driven mania.
I agree with your definition of tolerance. I don't especially care for the "celebrate diversity" thing, as it can imply that diversity (however defined) trumps individuality.
WMB--
Right. My reading of "do unto others..." amounts to "mind your own business." :-)
(It sounds rather nasty on first take, but I think it's a workable philosophy.)
"I think it is the very cultural values of these societies that keep them in poverty and ignorance although we curretnly have no clue how to change this situation."
I think it all comes down to what we consider more important: a sense of societal solidarity (the price of which is poverty and ignorance) or relative wealth and education (the price of which is societal deterioration). The west owes its prosperity to its adoption of capitalist values -- but how have these values transformed our society? Western society is characterized by indefatigably fast-paced and ever-increasing production. We've become a society of mass consumerism, each of us leading an atomistic existence in a sea of dehumanized faces. Sure, there may be prosperity now -- but can such a society survive long into the future? Or will it eventually cave in on itself? IMO the folks in the Middle East instinctively grasp that the never-slowing, ever-innovating, exponentially productive west is headed for ultimate disaster. They translate this forboding feeling into religious or moralistic terms. That which is instinctively felt to be leading in a dangerous direction is censored as "sin" against God. This is why bin Laden condemns the "infidel" west and wants the middle east to return to a more medieval way of life.
I also think that traditional value systems and ways of life necessarily involve prejudice. I don't take prejudice to be an evil in and of itself; rather, we're judging prejudice to be something evil or undesireable according to our own western value system. Conversely, in some cultures (such as the Arab cultures in the middle east) many forms of prejudice are sanctioned under the holiest imperatives.
"My reading of 'do unto others...' amounts to 'mind your own business.'"
I guess I don't understand why 'mind your own business' should be considered the one supreme value and moral principle by which all other values should be assessed and judged. Again, I think its probably a by-product of societal deterioration; an encompassing sense of solidarity has dissolved into an over-emphasis on the private individual and his "right to be happy". Where there's little or no sense of collective identity, the most natural thing for everyone to do is to mind their own business.
"Now it sounds to me like some positive, ayn-randish view on selfishness. I like it."
Ah yes, Ms. Rand...I spent a lot of time getting to know her last year. She constitutes the perfect example of linear, one-dimensional thinking. Every thought follows the next in a clear, logical, sequential manner -- but her philosophy is completely void or any height, depth or a broader comprehension of things. She certainly suffered from a very bad case of myopia too. IMO Aynie was an abortion of Marxist ideology -- a dwarfed, half-finished by-product and by-consequence, a jaundiced eye, a shrill protest at the socio-economic theory that gave her birth. Everything about her is pure reaction: her whole philosophy adds up to nothing more than a warped negation.
Who is John Galt? Nobody -- unless you count the sociopath next door. Her ethics are even more unrealistic than those of Hegel or Marx.
Post a Comment