I had a conversation in Skypeland with a man from Bulgaria who lives part of the year in Turkey. I said that the modern world was incredible, and the internet was amazing, since one had so much information and news available from all around the world. He disagreed a bit, since he said that when he visited the US he talked to an American that did not know where Bulgaria is. I said this was probably because Americans no longer study geography in school, but I did not tell him the truth. The truth is, Bulgaria is not a particularly important country and it is unlikely that most Americans would pay much attention to it, even if they studied geography in school.
Then I asked him about the "Armenian Genocide", and he gave me an "interesting" interpretation. He said that the Ottoman Empire included many subgroups, and the Armenians were causing trouble. They were told that if they continued to cause trouble, they would be relocated to an area near the Syrian border. They continued to cause trouble, so the Ottomans moved them. While the Armenians were moving to the Syrian border area, a flu broke out and many Armenians died. And that was the Armenian Genocide. Hmm...
Monday, October 29, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
England is better
Some young lads from England in Skypeland bragged that they had a larger GDP than the US, and accepted more immigrants. They claimed that the US was a fascist state. They went on and on and on. And I looked up a few statistics and sure enough, everything they said was just nonsense....
They bragged that they had the highest quality engineers in the world.
They bragged that they had the highest quality engineers in the world.
Panama Canal
In Skypeland, two gentleman from the United Kingdom were talking to someone from Argentina. One of the Brits was shocked to discover that South America was a large area and even bigger than the UK by a large factor. He also asked about the name of the rainforrests in Argentina and talked about Macedonia being in South America. (Actually, I found out that there is a town in Brazil called Macedônia)
The Brit went on and on about how awful it was that Argentina was cutting down all its rain forests. (Although the Argentinian said Argentina had no rain forests, I was surprised to find out that in the far north of Argentina, there are some rain forests:
http://www.ecologyfund.com/registry/ecology/info_amazon.html
such as Yukatinga Nature Reserve and Iguazu National Park.)
I asked about the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. There was a bit of confusion when the two from the UK thought I was talking about the Maldives at first, or then Gibraltar. Finally I helped them understand that I was asking about the Falkland Islands. I told them that the US had given support to the UK forces with various military aircraft and they expressed doubts that this could be true. There was some discussion about the US ignoring the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and helping the UK instead, and damaging its image as a result. One of the Brits was sure that this was the same as NATO and asked about it several times and had to be repeatedly corrected. The man from Argentina that there is no resentment towards the UK for the Falklands War, but there is plenty of resentment towards the US for supporting dictators in South America. I agreed that the US had not always covered itself with glory in Latin America, in places such as Chile. The two guys from the UK said that Panama was far worse, since about 25 years ago the Americans had slaughtered tens of thousands of Panamanians and flattened towns in Panama, making an exclusion zone around the canal, and selling the land which they did not even own. I said that this had to be associated with the building of the canal, and that the Americans built the Canal about 100 years ago. The two brits disagreed and said that the US had nothing to do with the Panama Canal and that it was the French that had built it.
Later they started to discuss the contributions of Argentina to world culture and the Argentinian mentioned some authors. Someone from Trinidad asked the Brits if they had read one particularly famous book. One of the Brits said, "if you ask me if I have read a book, 99.9998% of the time I will not have read it." The Brit asked about the standard of education in Argentina, and said that "the standard of education in Britain was supposed to be really high, but if you look to see what most teenagers leave school with, you have to wonder".
We started to talk about the Tuco Tuco, and the man from Trinidad said it was the second largest rodent in the world, and does not dig its own burrows. It uses the burrows created by a burrowing owl.
The Argentinian expressed surprise that the US had stopped the Argentinian condor missile program. He said that Argentinians had a lot of resentment about this. I pointed out that Argentina was doing it jointly with Egypt and Iraq, and therefore it was not a surprise that the program was stopped. The Brit said it was clear that it had some dirty Jews behind it.
I said that Argentina had a larger per capita GDP than the US 120 years ago. The Brit said that the US is clearly wealthier than other countries because they just print more money than other countries. The man from Trinidad disagreed since he said the US could not print more money than the amount of gold in Fort Knox. The Brit asked if the man from Argentina had ever come face to face with a Puma. They all agreed that Pumas lived in Argentina. The man from Trinidad said that Peron was a Nazi since he was part of the National Socialist Party in Argentina.
A discussion then ensued stating that the US had known the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and that they had therefore sent all the aircraft carriers out to sea first. They claimed that the US had not left any ships of any importance in Pearl Harbor. The Israeli claimed that this was very well established and that there was no doubt about it.
The Argentinian asked what Americans thought of the lie to the world about the weapons of mass destruction, and that lie being used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
I asked about why the UN was evacuated. The Israeli started talking about how to make a dirty bomb and said it was easy to make. He said that the US had intelligence that a dirty bomb was going to be set off on the street outside the UN and therefore the UN was evacuated.
The Israeli said that the next terrorist attack will be using liquid gas ships since they had hijacked ships and learned to pilot them and then left them to continue. He said that clearly Al Qaeda planned to hijack a liquid gas ship and explode it in the New York harbor.
The Israeli said that a Texan had bought London Bridge and moved it to Texas. He said the Texan thought he was buying Tower Bridge and was fooled and bought London Bridge instead. There was a discussion of how noisy the new Millenium Bridge was because it vibrated when people walked on it. The Israeli said that the Romans were so long in Britain that the British did not learn anything from them, and should have known not to march over a bridge, but instead have just walked over the bridge.
The Brit went on and on about how awful it was that Argentina was cutting down all its rain forests. (Although the Argentinian said Argentina had no rain forests, I was surprised to find out that in the far north of Argentina, there are some rain forests:
http://www.ecologyfund.com/registry/ecology/info_amazon.html
such as Yukatinga Nature Reserve and Iguazu National Park.)
I asked about the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. There was a bit of confusion when the two from the UK thought I was talking about the Maldives at first, or then Gibraltar. Finally I helped them understand that I was asking about the Falkland Islands. I told them that the US had given support to the UK forces with various military aircraft and they expressed doubts that this could be true. There was some discussion about the US ignoring the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance and helping the UK instead, and damaging its image as a result. One of the Brits was sure that this was the same as NATO and asked about it several times and had to be repeatedly corrected. The man from Argentina that there is no resentment towards the UK for the Falklands War, but there is plenty of resentment towards the US for supporting dictators in South America. I agreed that the US had not always covered itself with glory in Latin America, in places such as Chile. The two guys from the UK said that Panama was far worse, since about 25 years ago the Americans had slaughtered tens of thousands of Panamanians and flattened towns in Panama, making an exclusion zone around the canal, and selling the land which they did not even own. I said that this had to be associated with the building of the canal, and that the Americans built the Canal about 100 years ago. The two brits disagreed and said that the US had nothing to do with the Panama Canal and that it was the French that had built it.
Later they started to discuss the contributions of Argentina to world culture and the Argentinian mentioned some authors. Someone from Trinidad asked the Brits if they had read one particularly famous book. One of the Brits said, "if you ask me if I have read a book, 99.9998% of the time I will not have read it." The Brit asked about the standard of education in Argentina, and said that "the standard of education in Britain was supposed to be really high, but if you look to see what most teenagers leave school with, you have to wonder".
We started to talk about the Tuco Tuco, and the man from Trinidad said it was the second largest rodent in the world, and does not dig its own burrows. It uses the burrows created by a burrowing owl.
The Argentinian expressed surprise that the US had stopped the Argentinian condor missile program. He said that Argentinians had a lot of resentment about this. I pointed out that Argentina was doing it jointly with Egypt and Iraq, and therefore it was not a surprise that the program was stopped. The Brit said it was clear that it had some dirty Jews behind it.
I said that Argentina had a larger per capita GDP than the US 120 years ago. The Brit said that the US is clearly wealthier than other countries because they just print more money than other countries. The man from Trinidad disagreed since he said the US could not print more money than the amount of gold in Fort Knox. The Brit asked if the man from Argentina had ever come face to face with a Puma. They all agreed that Pumas lived in Argentina. The man from Trinidad said that Peron was a Nazi since he was part of the National Socialist Party in Argentina.
A discussion then ensued stating that the US had known the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and that they had therefore sent all the aircraft carriers out to sea first. They claimed that the US had not left any ships of any importance in Pearl Harbor. The Israeli claimed that this was very well established and that there was no doubt about it.
The Argentinian asked what Americans thought of the lie to the world about the weapons of mass destruction, and that lie being used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
I asked about why the UN was evacuated. The Israeli started talking about how to make a dirty bomb and said it was easy to make. He said that the US had intelligence that a dirty bomb was going to be set off on the street outside the UN and therefore the UN was evacuated.
The Israeli said that the next terrorist attack will be using liquid gas ships since they had hijacked ships and learned to pilot them and then left them to continue. He said that clearly Al Qaeda planned to hijack a liquid gas ship and explode it in the New York harbor.
The Israeli said that a Texan had bought London Bridge and moved it to Texas. He said the Texan thought he was buying Tower Bridge and was fooled and bought London Bridge instead. There was a discussion of how noisy the new Millenium Bridge was because it vibrated when people walked on it. The Israeli said that the Romans were so long in Britain that the British did not learn anything from them, and should have known not to march over a bridge, but instead have just walked over the bridge.
Pull it !
Another claim that I have heard repeatedly in Skypeland is that WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted in a September 2002 PBS documentary that he had asked them to "pull it", presumably to set off the planted charges in Building 7 to demolish it. When I looked at the evidence compiled by the 911 conspiracy theory debunkers and skeptics, this looks completely ridiculous:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
The hijackers are alive!
A common topic that arises in Skypeland is whether the US attacked itself on 911 to create a pretext for attacking Iraq. One hears all variety of arguments that "prove" this, and almost no willingness of proponents to hear any arguments to the contrary.
As soon as someone tries to answer point A, point B is raised, and then C, and D and so on, even before a single point has been answered. One of the most common complaints raised is that the BBC found 6, or 7, or 9 or more of the alleged hijackers walking around unharmed in the Middle East after the event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
However, further investigation found that all these claims were based on mistakes like spelling errors, mistaken identity and common names:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED7163BF935A2575AC0A9679C8B63
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200202/06/eng20020206_90055.shtml
The BBC withdrew its earlier news story on this basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
Nevertheless, it is impossible to not hear this story raised over and over and over as proof of some evil plot that the US and the UK or maybe the Jews had to attack and kill innocent US and UK citizens.
As soon as someone tries to answer point A, point B is raised, and then C, and D and so on, even before a single point has been answered. One of the most common complaints raised is that the BBC found 6, or 7, or 9 or more of the alleged hijackers walking around unharmed in the Middle East after the event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
However, further investigation found that all these claims were based on mistakes like spelling errors, mistaken identity and common names:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0DEED7163BF935A2575AC0A9679C8B63
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-2,00.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200202/06/eng20020206_90055.shtml
The BBC withdrew its earlier news story on this basis.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
Nevertheless, it is impossible to not hear this story raised over and over and over as proof of some evil plot that the US and the UK or maybe the Jews had to attack and kill innocent US and UK citizens.
The most hated person on Skype
A friend told me that she had decided that I am the most hated person in Skypeland. People that I had never talked to were telling her that I am flagging all the casts, or that I hate all Muslims etc.
This is pretty funny considering my own viewpoints, and the fact that I only flag truely inappropriate casts about pornography or hacking. My position is that people should tolerate other religions and beliefs and cultures. However, anyone who suggests attacking others because of their background will find I am not very accommodating.
This goes double for those who say they want to kill group A or B because they have a different religion or come from a different ethnic background or culture or who have a different sexual orientation. I just do not feel I have to tolerate this sort of hate speech and I will speak out against it. If this makes me hated, then I guess that is how things will be. I invite anyone who "hates" me based on my views to examine their own views...
This is pretty funny considering my own viewpoints, and the fact that I only flag truely inappropriate casts about pornography or hacking. My position is that people should tolerate other religions and beliefs and cultures. However, anyone who suggests attacking others because of their background will find I am not very accommodating.
This goes double for those who say they want to kill group A or B because they have a different religion or come from a different ethnic background or culture or who have a different sexual orientation. I just do not feel I have to tolerate this sort of hate speech and I will speak out against it. If this makes me hated, then I guess that is how things will be. I invite anyone who "hates" me based on my views to examine their own views...
Chicken Seminars with Elvis
Sometimes in Skypeland it is hard to find decent casts. Here is an example of someone looking for a good discussion to join:
[1:50:33 PM] G says: Have you found anything decent out there? No chiken seminars with Elvis...
[1:51:16 PM] P says: haha....
[1:51:22 PM] P says: no chicken seminars with elvis?
[1:51:34 PM] G says: Elvis-Jesus?
Actually, that sounds like a perfect title for a Skypecast...
[1:50:33 PM] G says: Have you found anything decent out there? No chiken seminars with Elvis...
[1:51:16 PM] P says: haha....
[1:51:22 PM] P says: no chicken seminars with elvis?
[1:51:34 PM] G says: Elvis-Jesus?
Actually, that sounds like a perfect title for a Skypecast...
What race is Michael Jackson?
A Skypeland cast that focused mainly on flirting and nonsense devolved even further when the host left. Several people broke out into song at this, singing about "tits, asses, shit, bums, fucking, pussies, etc." An African American asked what race Michael Jackson was, according to the US government? Others said he must be an extraterrestrial. A man from South Africa spoke fondly of the time in the 70s when he and his father stole a device for electrifying fences from a farm, and hooked it up to the front door knob. They apparently enjoyed themselves immensely until the battery ran down.
Thinking outside the box
It is interesting to see how people think and reason from conversations with them in Skypeland. One gentleman I have encountered loves to say how he does not follow the herd and thinks outside the box. However, most of the ideas he espouses are gleaned from watching youtube videos, or rumors he has picked up from his friends, or just screwball misunderstandings of science. For example:
*he believes all governments are secretly controlled behind the scenes by the evil Illuminati/Rothschilds/Jews etc (This crazy conspiracy theory is well over a century old and never seems to die).
*he believes that the Big Bang is impossible since you cannot get all matter in a small space (He thinks his own intuition and common sense means more than the evidence and data and reasoning of tens of thousands of scientists, including Nobel Prize winners.).
*he believes the flagellum is irreducibly complex and this has been proven scientifically, when the opposite is true. (a hoax pushed by the private money behind the Discovery Institute and a publicity campaign; this was shown to be wrong in the Dover trial with dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies and books.).
*he believes that it is proven that 911 was an inside job (a hoax pushed by those such as Islamists who claim no Jews showed up for work on 911, or two French brothers with a video business. He believes that a janitor in the world trade center has more credibility than hundreds of scientists and engineering professors and other experts. In fact, the more education someone has, the less likely he is to believe what they say. He favors the opinions of the most ignorant and is proud of it.).
*he believes that you can get rid of air pollution by burning it (Anyone who has had elementary high school chemistry should know how silly this position is. If this is possible, try burning the ashes from the campfire you had last night and see what happens.).
*he believes all governments are secretly controlled behind the scenes by the evil Illuminati/Rothschilds/Jews etc (This crazy conspiracy theory is well over a century old and never seems to die).
*he believes that the Big Bang is impossible since you cannot get all matter in a small space (He thinks his own intuition and common sense means more than the evidence and data and reasoning of tens of thousands of scientists, including Nobel Prize winners.).
*he believes the flagellum is irreducibly complex and this has been proven scientifically, when the opposite is true. (a hoax pushed by the private money behind the Discovery Institute and a publicity campaign; this was shown to be wrong in the Dover trial with dozens and dozens of peer-reviewed studies and books.).
*he believes that it is proven that 911 was an inside job (a hoax pushed by those such as Islamists who claim no Jews showed up for work on 911, or two French brothers with a video business. He believes that a janitor in the world trade center has more credibility than hundreds of scientists and engineering professors and other experts. In fact, the more education someone has, the less likely he is to believe what they say. He favors the opinions of the most ignorant and is proud of it.).
*he believes that you can get rid of air pollution by burning it (Anyone who has had elementary high school chemistry should know how silly this position is. If this is possible, try burning the ashes from the campfire you had last night and see what happens.).
Controversial statement
Over and over in religious casts in Skypeland, I am amazed at how controversial a simple reasonable statement I make turns out to be. I advocate allowing Buddhists believe in Buddhism if they want, and Hindus believe in Hinduism if they want, and Muslims believe in Islam if they want and Christians believe in Christianity if they want and Jews believe in Judaism if they want, etc. I believe in live and let live. I believe in the Moslem dictum "There is no compulsion in religion". I believe in the Golden Rule (love they neighbor as thyself). I do not think anyone should be trying to force others to believe what they personally believe, or to change other's religions or should be attacking others for their religions. And this goes not only for major religions, but different sects or denominations; no Sunni should be trying to attack or convert Shia for example. Sunni and Shia should not be looking down on Sufis. Orthodox Jews should not look down on Reform Jews and vice versa. Other Christians should not be condemning Catholics. And so on and so forth.
This turns out to be one of the most controversial positions I could ever take. People love to use religion as an excuse to hate others, to attack them, to try to change their beliefs, etc. This gets people really hot under the collar. What is wrong with letting people believe what they want? Why is forcing one's personal religious beliefs on others such a deep-seated desire?
I listened to a sermon by "Brother Harold Camping" of Family Radio who gave an amazing "bible-based" argument for why the Golden Rule is not good for Christians to follow. He preached that "loving your neighbor as yourself" was bad theology and bad Christianity, and that God wants us to hate most other people. Wow...people just love to hate, don't they?
This turns out to be one of the most controversial positions I could ever take. People love to use religion as an excuse to hate others, to attack them, to try to change their beliefs, etc. This gets people really hot under the collar. What is wrong with letting people believe what they want? Why is forcing one's personal religious beliefs on others such a deep-seated desire?
I listened to a sermon by "Brother Harold Camping" of Family Radio who gave an amazing "bible-based" argument for why the Golden Rule is not good for Christians to follow. He preached that "loving your neighbor as yourself" was bad theology and bad Christianity, and that God wants us to hate most other people. Wow...people just love to hate, don't they?
Saturday, October 27, 2007
I only want the evidence
In Skypeland people love to trade conspiracy information. In one room, a man told me that he believed that 911 was an inside job and that he was only interested in the evidence. I said I had a few sites that had information that debunked the 9/11 conspiracy theories. He said he was not interested in that kind of evidence. Oh yes...he is only interested in the evidence. As long as the evidence proves that 9/11 was an inside job.
A common tactic is to ask a question, and then as someone tries to answer it, to shout down the person trying to answer the question. This was used over and over in this skypecast. I was asked repeatedly why NORAD had been ordered to stand down. I said I did not think they had been. This made them belligerent. I asked the host why he believed that NORAD had been ordered to stand down. He said he read it in the 911 report. I asked where and he said he would not waste his time finding it. (So I read the 911 report myself. And the full account of the interaction with NORAD is found mainly on pages 14-33 of the 911 commission report:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
It says not one bit, not a whisper about NORAD being ordered to stand down. This is one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever encountered...).
And then my microphone was shut off. And they then said the reason I disagreed with 9/11 being an inside job is that I am probably a "filthy Jew". Ah...now it becomes clear. Then they started patting each other on the back, and telling each other that I must be a racist and telling each other how superior they were since they were not dirty racists like me. They were laughing and pleased with themselves. Well they certainly showed me didn't they ? Yes they showed me they are not racists, for sure...
Some other sites which debunk the 911 conspiracy theories:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2007&m=March&x=20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2007&m=March&x=20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/1.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/2.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/6.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/15.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/3.html
A common tactic is to ask a question, and then as someone tries to answer it, to shout down the person trying to answer the question. This was used over and over in this skypecast. I was asked repeatedly why NORAD had been ordered to stand down. I said I did not think they had been. This made them belligerent. I asked the host why he believed that NORAD had been ordered to stand down. He said he read it in the 911 report. I asked where and he said he would not waste his time finding it. (So I read the 911 report myself. And the full account of the interaction with NORAD is found mainly on pages 14-33 of the 911 commission report:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
It says not one bit, not a whisper about NORAD being ordered to stand down. This is one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever encountered...).
And then my microphone was shut off. And they then said the reason I disagreed with 9/11 being an inside job is that I am probably a "filthy Jew". Ah...now it becomes clear. Then they started patting each other on the back, and telling each other that I must be a racist and telling each other how superior they were since they were not dirty racists like me. They were laughing and pleased with themselves. Well they certainly showed me didn't they ? Yes they showed me they are not racists, for sure...
Some other sites which debunk the 911 conspiracy theories:
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2007&m=March&x=20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2007&m=March&x=20070330134723abretnuh0.9919245
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/1.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/2.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/6.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/15.html
http://photos.state.gov/galleries/usinfo-photo/39/Sept_11_Pentagon/3.html
Normal people
In Skypeland, someone said that the middle class people were not normal people. He said that normal people were working class people, people that come home from work and play with their kids. He said that middle class people ran the governments of all countries, and they do not know real life since they are born into money and go to private schools. He said that normal people constitute 60-80% of the population. (He sure has some different definitions of "normal people" and "middle class" people than I have ever heard. I wonder who he thinks the "upper class" people are? )
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The languages of China and the World
In Skypeland, a lot of people like to claim to be experts in various fields. A man whose company does a lot of business in South East Asia claimed that the business language of China is Hakkian, and the language of the Chinese peasants in the countryside is Cantonese. He said that the main second language of China is probably Tamil, although it could be English. (I believe he was referring to the dialect of the Hakka people, spoken by 34 million people and is the 32nd most popular language in the world. Cantonese, or Yue Chinese, is spoken mainly in Hong Kong and the region around Hong Kong and is spoken by 55-100 million people and is the 22nd most popular language in the world. Tamil is spoken mainly in Southern India and Sri Lanka and is spoken by 77 million people and is not remotely close to the 2nd most popular language in China, or even in India, where it is the 5th most popular language. There are 873 million native Mandarin speakers, and the second most common language in China is probably Wu with about 77 million native speakers. English has the 3rd greatest number of native speakers at 309 million, but the greatest number of total speakers at 1.1 billion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers )
A man from Scotland asked if it was not true that English was the most spoken language in the world. Others in the room disagreed and said it had to be Chinese, considering China and all the Chinatowns in America as well (This is clearly not true from the website above) . Someone said that clearly English is not a very influential language worldwide because there are so many Arabic skypecasts. (From the website above, there are about 1/3 as many Arabic speakers as English speakers).
An Englishman said that Indians always say the word "sorry" because they only speak "textbook English" and they have no experience in using English day to day and never deal with accents (This sounds like pure nonsense. How can someone from a country with dozens of languages never have to deal with accents? And what is "textbook English" ?) . He said that pidgin English is textbook English, and that pidgin English is called that because it makes people sound like pigeons. (There are many varieties of "pidgin English", but it is not called "pidgin English" because the people speaking it sound like birds. It is said that the term "pidgin" refers to the Chinese Pidgin word for "business".)
Someone else said that during the 1940s, more than 40 per cent of the people in the US spoke German, so it would have been very easy for the US if Hitler had won World War II (I find this claim very difficult to reconcile with the evidence. At the outbreak of World War I, about 6% of all US school children received instruction in German. However, after World War I, usage of German sharply declined, and presently there are about 0.5% of the US population that claim to speak German. At present, about 17.5% of all Americans are of German ancestry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_as_a_Minority_Language#German_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_in_the_United_States
).
The conversation turned to oil, and someone English said that the English Brent Crude had been squandered and was of low quality since it could only be refined to "two star" oil. He said that there was only 9 years of English oil left, and after that England would have to import its oil from Algeria.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers )
A man from Scotland asked if it was not true that English was the most spoken language in the world. Others in the room disagreed and said it had to be Chinese, considering China and all the Chinatowns in America as well (This is clearly not true from the website above) . Someone said that clearly English is not a very influential language worldwide because there are so many Arabic skypecasts. (From the website above, there are about 1/3 as many Arabic speakers as English speakers).
An Englishman said that Indians always say the word "sorry" because they only speak "textbook English" and they have no experience in using English day to day and never deal with accents (This sounds like pure nonsense. How can someone from a country with dozens of languages never have to deal with accents? And what is "textbook English" ?) . He said that pidgin English is textbook English, and that pidgin English is called that because it makes people sound like pigeons. (There are many varieties of "pidgin English", but it is not called "pidgin English" because the people speaking it sound like birds. It is said that the term "pidgin" refers to the Chinese Pidgin word for "business".)
Someone else said that during the 1940s, more than 40 per cent of the people in the US spoke German, so it would have been very easy for the US if Hitler had won World War II (I find this claim very difficult to reconcile with the evidence. At the outbreak of World War I, about 6% of all US school children received instruction in German. However, after World War I, usage of German sharply declined, and presently there are about 0.5% of the US population that claim to speak German. At present, about 17.5% of all Americans are of German ancestry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_as_a_Minority_Language#German_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_in_the_United_States
).
The conversation turned to oil, and someone English said that the English Brent Crude had been squandered and was of low quality since it could only be refined to "two star" oil. He said that there was only 9 years of English oil left, and after that England would have to import its oil from Algeria.
Cartoon states
In Skypeland, one can hear all kinds of opinions. An Egyptian said that Egypt was widely viewed as the leader of the Arab world, and blamed all the religious trouble in the Middle East on the countries of the gulf. He also said this was created indirectly by the Americans because they bought the oil from the gulf states. He said that all the countries in the gulf, including Saudi Arabia were not real countries, but "cartoon states". Ah yes...
You are racist!
In Skypeland, a political cast was quite lively. One Arab was frantic to have his microphone turned on. He told us that he hated all Americans and Jews, and said that everyone else in the room was a racist for speaking negatively about Arab countries. An Iraqi challenged him to identify one good Arab country, and he decided he would leave the room. Ah yes... easier than answering I guess.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Get rid of air pollution
In Skypeland, people love to spew incredible nonsense, and can get combative if they are challenged. In one skypecast, several people discussed how stupid it was not to burn the exhaust that comes out of the powerplant smokestacks to reduce pollution. Someone pointed out that this would create excess heat, and would contribute to global warming because it would heat up the atmosphere. Someone else said burning exhaust would not reduce pollution, since burning the smoke would create hydrogen that would pollute the atmosphere. I tried to say this was silly, and I was attacked and cursed and my microphone was shut off. People said that I was interfering with their ability to learn by trying to correct them. Oh well...go ahead and learn this important information then... (I wonder how many of these people have ever tried to burn ashes, or remember much from their middle school and elementary school chemistry classes. Obviously, not many, since in a room of about 10 people, I was the only one who objected to these statements. People immediately became defensive, and declared that they were sure they were correct and cursed me for questioning their reasoning. They also bragged about how smart they are and how much they know... Ah yes, that much is evident...)
The Ganges is very clean
It never ceases to amaze me what sorts of opinions one can hear in Skypeland. Someone in one cast very aggressively told everyone who would listen that the water in the Ganges River is extremely clean and of very high quality. (Since I had heard about dead animal carcasses floating in the Ganges, I was a bit amazed to hear someone make this sort of claim. There has been a government program to clean up the Ganges since 1985: http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/13/stories/2006071314760400.htm
and there has been a marked improvement in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) in the last 20 years. However, it is still a very polluted river: http://ywwf.net/knowledgebase/riverbasins/as-ganges.html
and is well below the Indian water quality standards (let alone World Health Organization standards), and contributes substantially to the incidence of various enteric diseases in India: http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php?journalid=7&issueid=63&articleid=782&action=article
When I mentioned this, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong, since one person in the cast had seen the Ganges and he said it was perfectly clean. Oh really....
Addendum: Here is a blog from a woman living in India talking about the water pollution problems in the Ganges:
http://alternativefrock.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/ram-teri-ganga-maili-ho-gayi/
She claims large volumes of untreated sewage are dumped in the river, that animal carcasses floating in the river are common and that the water is not suitable for agricultural use now. Hmm... Does not sound very clean, does it?
and there has been a marked improvement in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) in the last 20 years. However, it is still a very polluted river: http://ywwf.net/knowledgebase/riverbasins/as-ganges.html
and is well below the Indian water quality standards (let alone World Health Organization standards), and contributes substantially to the incidence of various enteric diseases in India: http://www.indmedica.com/journals.php?journalid=7&issueid=63&articleid=782&action=article
When I mentioned this, I was told in no uncertain terms that I was wrong, since one person in the cast had seen the Ganges and he said it was perfectly clean. Oh really....
Addendum: Here is a blog from a woman living in India talking about the water pollution problems in the Ganges:
http://alternativefrock.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/ram-teri-ganga-maili-ho-gayi/
She claims large volumes of untreated sewage are dumped in the river, that animal carcasses floating in the river are common and that the water is not suitable for agricultural use now. Hmm... Does not sound very clean, does it?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
A complete mockery
Obviously some in Skypeland are not happy that I am writing this blog. Here is an example from a profile a friend directed me to recently:
*X is reporting your skypecast and recording skypecast, creating conspiracys against each other (Creating conspiracys against each other? What on earth does THAT mean?) While making a complete mockery of your thoughts and opinions on blogs. (Interesting. I am not the same person as X of course, but I wonder if anyone really believes it is much effort to make a "complete mockery" of the thoughts and opinions expressed in Skypeland as reported in this blog... I think people pretty much speak for themselves and they do not like anyone to disagree with their assorted nonsense and hate-mongering. Most people are able to make a mockery of themselves without much effort at all from me. All I do is point out their fallacies and inconsistencies and ridiculous statements. If that offends, well, too bad...) down with this neocon. (If someone believes I am a "neocon", or that X is, they have not listened to us very carefully, and that would be another perfect example of something that could be mocked...)
*X is reporting your skypecast and recording skypecast, creating conspiracys against each other (Creating conspiracys against each other? What on earth does THAT mean?) While making a complete mockery of your thoughts and opinions on blogs. (Interesting. I am not the same person as X of course, but I wonder if anyone really believes it is much effort to make a "complete mockery" of the thoughts and opinions expressed in Skypeland as reported in this blog... I think people pretty much speak for themselves and they do not like anyone to disagree with their assorted nonsense and hate-mongering. Most people are able to make a mockery of themselves without much effort at all from me. All I do is point out their fallacies and inconsistencies and ridiculous statements. If that offends, well, too bad...) down with this neocon. (If someone believes I am a "neocon", or that X is, they have not listened to us very carefully, and that would be another perfect example of something that could be mocked...)
Saturday, October 20, 2007
A cultural difference
In a discussion in Skypeland about how people from different faiths can live together, someone from a Muslim country wanted to give us an example of how superior Islam is. He said that in a Muslim country, a man killed a child with his automobile. The crowd was upset and wanted to kill him, so he sought refuge in a nearby house. The man of the house agreed, when his son appeared and said he wanted to kill the driver since the driver had struck and killed his brother; that is, the other son of the man of the house. The man of the house forbade his son from hurting this driver seeking refuge. However, the son disobeyed and killed the driver, so in response the man of the house killed his son for disobeying.
The Muslim who told this story was extremely proud of it, as though it showed the decency and moral superiority of Islam over all other beliefs. When I said that the man should have called the police after his son killed the driver, I was treated with disdain, and told that this just showed how weak I was and not strong like these good Muslim people... (As I contemplate this story, it strikes me that we have a vast gap in standards and understanding here. In the West, the accident should have been reported to the police immediately. The behavior of the crowd was improper, and the police should have been called. The driver should not have run, and should have called the police. The man in the house should have called the police. The son should have called the police. The father should have called the police about his son's actions. The fact that this was not obvious, or that my suggestions were summarily rejected, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Western society and culture and the rule of law. Interesting...)
At this, I said this is an example of cultural differences; why we need to communicate more so we can understand each other better. These people do not understand the rule of law. Muslims riot after the Danish cartoons and kill each other, not understanding free speech and freedom of the press. Muslims expect Americans to welcome Ahmadenijad and not criticize him when he visited the US. These are all signs of cultural misunderstandings and vast confusion... (The good part of this story is that with modern communications and technology, parts of the world that were never before in contact are able to talk to each other and share views. This is a unique time in history, and it is a bit painful and uncomfortable at first, but in the long run I think this can only be good.)
The Muslim who told this story was extremely proud of it, as though it showed the decency and moral superiority of Islam over all other beliefs. When I said that the man should have called the police after his son killed the driver, I was treated with disdain, and told that this just showed how weak I was and not strong like these good Muslim people... (As I contemplate this story, it strikes me that we have a vast gap in standards and understanding here. In the West, the accident should have been reported to the police immediately. The behavior of the crowd was improper, and the police should have been called. The driver should not have run, and should have called the police. The man in the house should have called the police. The son should have called the police. The father should have called the police about his son's actions. The fact that this was not obvious, or that my suggestions were summarily rejected, demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of Western society and culture and the rule of law. Interesting...)
At this, I said this is an example of cultural differences; why we need to communicate more so we can understand each other better. These people do not understand the rule of law. Muslims riot after the Danish cartoons and kill each other, not understanding free speech and freedom of the press. Muslims expect Americans to welcome Ahmadenijad and not criticize him when he visited the US. These are all signs of cultural misunderstandings and vast confusion... (The good part of this story is that with modern communications and technology, parts of the world that were never before in contact are able to talk to each other and share views. This is a unique time in history, and it is a bit painful and uncomfortable at first, but in the long run I think this can only be good.)
Pollard was never jailed
In a cast in Skypeland, about being tolerant of other religions, things naturally turned into a discussion about how awful Israel is. I listened in amazement as Arabs told me that Israel gets 2/3 of the US foreign aid. (I checked and Israel gets less than 10% of US foreign aid at the moment, and this figure has been dropping over the last 10+ years: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf) The Arabs told me that it is unfair that Israel is allowed to improve the antirocket weaponry that it had bought from the US and from Germany (This strikes me as a crazy objection. How is Israel supposed to be stopped from developing technology? And why? So Arab rockets are more deadly?). The Arabs told me that Israel had developed a very powerful submarine force that could project power anywhere and launch rockets based on technology they had bought from Germany. I was told that it was unfair that the US sells crippled airplanes to Egypt and other Arab countries. I was told that it is unfair of the US to allow Syria to have planes that are so weak that they cannot even fly as far as the Israeli border. Apparently, Egypt was forced to give up its Russian M60 tank with a range of 100 km and accept a light American tank with a range of 40 km. I was told that Egypt only gets 30 million dollars of aid per year from the US, and most of its aid is in the form of uniforms for the Egyptian army (The sources indicate that Egypt gets almost 2 billion dollars of aid per year from the US).
Most incredibly, I was told that notorious Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard had stolen satellite technology from the pentagon and given it to Israel. Although he was supposed to spend 20 years in prison the Arabs said, he had never served a day in prison and turned up on the streets in Israel free immediately after with his wife, who had also given military information to Israel (Doing some checking. Pollard is still in US federal prison and has served 21 years of a life sentence in spite of actions in US courts including the US Supreme Court, actions in front of the Israel Supreme Court, lobbying of US and Israeli politicians etc. His wife also spent several years in prison but was released.)
What is fascinating to me is what sorts of things people believe in these situations. These people seemed perfectly reasonable until we got on this subject. Then they started throwing out crazy claims, with no evidence to back them up. I did not challenge them in this case, but in most instances when I question these claims, people become irate and combative. Wow...
Most incredibly, I was told that notorious Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard had stolen satellite technology from the pentagon and given it to Israel. Although he was supposed to spend 20 years in prison the Arabs said, he had never served a day in prison and turned up on the streets in Israel free immediately after with his wife, who had also given military information to Israel (Doing some checking. Pollard is still in US federal prison and has served 21 years of a life sentence in spite of actions in US courts including the US Supreme Court, actions in front of the Israel Supreme Court, lobbying of US and Israeli politicians etc. His wife also spent several years in prison but was released.)
What is fascinating to me is what sorts of things people believe in these situations. These people seemed perfectly reasonable until we got on this subject. Then they started throwing out crazy claims, with no evidence to back them up. I did not challenge them in this case, but in most instances when I question these claims, people become irate and combative. Wow...
Friday, October 19, 2007
I don't agree
In a cast in Skypeland, a friend of mine was getting frantic messages telling her to leave the talking area so he could get in since he had something very important to say. Finally he was permitted in to the talking area, and the first thing he said was, "Do you speak Portuguese?". When he was informed that no one did, he said the important thing he wanted to say was, "I do not agree". He was asked what he did not agree with, since they had previously been talking about eating cod, and he said he disagreed with everything, just on general principles.
Nixon was impeached
In Skypeland someone who sounded a bit inebriated started to hold forth on all kinds of issues. He said that Kissinger wanted to nuke Vietnam but Nixon did not. He said Kissinger was the only member of the Nixon Whitehouse that did not go to jail. He said that there was a public reason for impeaching Nixon, but there was a secret true reason. I asked what it was, and he said they impeached Nixon because he would not nuke Vietnam. I asked if the Democrats wanted to nuke Vietnam. He said no, that it was the Republicans who wanted to nuke Vietnam and the Republicans who had impeached Nixon.
The discussion turned to assassination attempts after Bhuttos near brush. I said that almost every US president had been the target of an assassination attempt over the last century and a half. Someone asked who had tried to kill Bush. I asked which Bush. They said "George". I tried several other times to ask which Bush, with the same result. I mentioned that someone had thrown a grenade at the stage when George W. Bush was in Russia. I also mentioned that allegedly Sadam Hussein had tried to kill George H. W. Bush. I was corrected and told that the Mossad tried to kill George H. W. Bush and then blamed it on Sadam Hussein.
The discussion turned to assassination attempts after Bhuttos near brush. I said that almost every US president had been the target of an assassination attempt over the last century and a half. Someone asked who had tried to kill Bush. I asked which Bush. They said "George". I tried several other times to ask which Bush, with the same result. I mentioned that someone had thrown a grenade at the stage when George W. Bush was in Russia. I also mentioned that allegedly Sadam Hussein had tried to kill George H. W. Bush. I was corrected and told that the Mossad tried to kill George H. W. Bush and then blamed it on Sadam Hussein.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Colonialism
In a cast in Skypeland about the US, some people from the UK said the US is a colonial power engaged in colonialism. This sort of charge is always astounding, considering the incredibly ugly history of UK colonialism lasting several centuries. However, it is something that people from the UK love to accuse the US of.
We asked them what was colonialism. Someone said it was taking a foreign country's land. The American host challenged the people from the UK to give an example where the US had taken foreign land and kept it. They were unable to, but continued to make obnoxious comments. (Guam, Puerto Rico and Liberia would at least be places that could be discussed, although it is not clear they are colonies particularly.)
The host read a dictionary definition of colonialism. Someone from Ireland kept yelling that this definition was bollocks and disagreeing. We asked him what his definition was, and he would not give one. We asked him to read his dictionary definition. He said he would, but refused to do so, only trying to pick a fight. I said I would be glad to discuss dictionary definitions with them. I pulled up some on the internet, and was starting to read one from the American Heritage Dictionary. The UK people were livid at this, and said any American dictionary was hopelessly biased. I went to the second definition, which was identical to the one the host had given, and from the Oxford Dictionary as I pointed out. They still made obnoxious comments and disputed it, particulary the man from Ireland who continued to refuse to give his own definition. I said I had a list of 50 dictionary definitions and I would be pleased to go through each one with them and discuss them, but they were not anxious to do this. Instead they wanted to make rude comments and catcalls, particularly the man from Ireland. Finally the host realized that this character had no interest in doing more than fighting, so he turned off his microphone...
We asked them what was colonialism. Someone said it was taking a foreign country's land. The American host challenged the people from the UK to give an example where the US had taken foreign land and kept it. They were unable to, but continued to make obnoxious comments. (Guam, Puerto Rico and Liberia would at least be places that could be discussed, although it is not clear they are colonies particularly.)
The host read a dictionary definition of colonialism. Someone from Ireland kept yelling that this definition was bollocks and disagreeing. We asked him what his definition was, and he would not give one. We asked him to read his dictionary definition. He said he would, but refused to do so, only trying to pick a fight. I said I would be glad to discuss dictionary definitions with them. I pulled up some on the internet, and was starting to read one from the American Heritage Dictionary. The UK people were livid at this, and said any American dictionary was hopelessly biased. I went to the second definition, which was identical to the one the host had given, and from the Oxford Dictionary as I pointed out. They still made obnoxious comments and disputed it, particulary the man from Ireland who continued to refuse to give his own definition. I said I had a list of 50 dictionary definitions and I would be pleased to go through each one with them and discuss them, but they were not anxious to do this. Instead they wanted to make rude comments and catcalls, particularly the man from Ireland. Finally the host realized that this character had no interest in doing more than fighting, so he turned off his microphone...
Where is your root?
A man with a heavy Jamaican accent entered into Skypeland and started asking us where our "root" was from, particularly in America. I asked if he meant where our ancestors are from, and he said no he was not referring to ancestry. He went on a long and confused explanation that said in the islands people talked about their "root" and we should all know our "root". I was never able to get him to describe what a root is, or where his root was. I tried to tell him where the indigenous peoples in the US appeared to come from, but he was not interested. I tried to talk to him about the ethnic groups in the US and where they had migrated from, and he was not interested. He just kept talking about the "root" and making less and less sense, the longer he talked. He was positive that others in the room were just being stupid or evasive since we would not tell him where our "root" is. Hmm...
Less in top hole, more out bottom hole
In a cast in Skypeland about obesity, I heard a wide range of opinions. I entered and a man from Palestine was talking about the politics there. Although it had nothing to do with obesity, he said that Palestinians only want peace, but the Israelis do not want peace. I tried to ask him what he thought of the new peace treaty that will be discussed in Annapolis next month. He only wanted to talk about how awfully the Israelis had behaved in 1948 and in 1993, and would not discuss the new peace treaty. He said that Palestinians only wanted all the land back from Israelis. Eventually, he came around to saying that the Palestinians wanted to fight the Israelis and kill them. Oh, interesting...so they only want peace huh?
Eventually we got the room on topic. Someone suggested that people were being made fat on purpose by the reptillians. The reptillians are fattening up people supposedly later for a feeding.
A man with a Russian accent gave some advice to avoid obesity. He said we should only feed children brown bread and cold water. As he said, "Less in top hole, more out bottom hole".
One man said he was not fat but his wife was full figured; only 100 kg or so. Someone said we should not spend so much money on wars like Iraq; we should instead spend money on treating fat people. It was asked if anyone fat has ever won a war; someone said Churchill was fat, but others disagreed and said he was "well formed". Someone said Napoleon was fat, but others said he was not fat, but only French and gay. People asked how we knew if someone was fat, and the Russian said if you take up two seats on the airplane, you are fat.
Eventually, the room dissipated into silence.
Eventually we got the room on topic. Someone suggested that people were being made fat on purpose by the reptillians. The reptillians are fattening up people supposedly later for a feeding.
A man with a Russian accent gave some advice to avoid obesity. He said we should only feed children brown bread and cold water. As he said, "Less in top hole, more out bottom hole".
One man said he was not fat but his wife was full figured; only 100 kg or so. Someone said we should not spend so much money on wars like Iraq; we should instead spend money on treating fat people. It was asked if anyone fat has ever won a war; someone said Churchill was fat, but others disagreed and said he was "well formed". Someone said Napoleon was fat, but others said he was not fat, but only French and gay. People asked how we knew if someone was fat, and the Russian said if you take up two seats on the airplane, you are fat.
Eventually, the room dissipated into silence.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
I am rich and comfortable
A political cast in Skypeland descended into nonsense when a Saudi decided to attack the West. At first he said he liked the American people, but did not like the government. Then it slowly devolved into a full-on attack.
He said that there is no unemployment in Saudi Arabia. (Interesting. The estimated unemployment rate in Saudi Arabia is 25%, unofficially, and over 15% officially). When we asked about the standard of living in Saudi Arabia, he said that he personally was rich and comfortable (the per capita income of Saudi Arabia is about $16,744 by one source, and $7870 by another source, as compared to the USA which is over $44,000. When I told him that by those standards, Saudi Arabia is quite poor, he flew into a rage. Of course there are some very wealthy people in Saudi Arabia, but the average person is not very well off.). He said if the Saudis could, they would kill all of us in the US and that they were offended by Americans. He said that the Saudis hated the Americans (funny how he changed his tune in a few minutes, but I have noticed this is very common).
I was not particularly happy about this, and I let him know. I pointed out that a major reason that Osama bin Laden was upset with the US is that it supported the royal family in Saudi Arabia, and vice-versa, which bin Laden despises (they even took away his Saudi citizenship). The Saudi disagreed with this vehemently and said it was because of US behavior in the world.
(This is completely false. Here is a CNN interview of bin Laden by Peter Arnett in 1997:
Q1: Mr Bin Ladin, could you give us your main criticism of the Saudi royal Family that is ruling Saudi Arabia today?
Osama Bin Laden: Regarding the criticisms of the ruling regime in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian peninsula, the first one is their subordination to the US. So, our main problem is the US government while the Saudi regime is but a branch or an agent of the US. By being loyal to the US regime, the Saudi regime has committed an act against Islam. And this, based on the ruling of Shari'a [Islamic jurisprudence], casts the regime outside the religious community. Subsequently, the regime has stopped ruling people according to what God revealed, praise and glory be to Him, not to mention many other contradictory acts. When this main foundation was violated, other corrupt acts followed in every aspect of the country, the economic, the social, government services and so on.
See the text of the full interview at:
http://www.justresponse.net/Bin_Laden4.html)
As always I am irritated by someone who wants to say the US is all bad, but is unable to admit there are any faults with their own country. No country or group is all bad or all good. It was a bit much for me to listen to someone tell me that the US actions in the world are terrible when one of those actions in the world is to keep his own government in power (which might be bad, according to some, but he could not even admit the US was doing that, by training the Saudis and selling them weapons and having troops stationed there for many years). One cannot have a frank and honest dialogue if the nature of the discussion is to be, "Your country is all bad, and mine is all good." It might be a bit difficult to find a receptive audience always with that sort of message. Particularly if you add in, "and we want to kill you all".
Some websites with numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia
http://i-cias.com/e.o/saudi_2.htm
http://www.economist.com/countries/SaudiArabia/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet
He said that there is no unemployment in Saudi Arabia. (Interesting. The estimated unemployment rate in Saudi Arabia is 25%, unofficially, and over 15% officially). When we asked about the standard of living in Saudi Arabia, he said that he personally was rich and comfortable (the per capita income of Saudi Arabia is about $16,744 by one source, and $7870 by another source, as compared to the USA which is over $44,000. When I told him that by those standards, Saudi Arabia is quite poor, he flew into a rage. Of course there are some very wealthy people in Saudi Arabia, but the average person is not very well off.). He said if the Saudis could, they would kill all of us in the US and that they were offended by Americans. He said that the Saudis hated the Americans (funny how he changed his tune in a few minutes, but I have noticed this is very common).
I was not particularly happy about this, and I let him know. I pointed out that a major reason that Osama bin Laden was upset with the US is that it supported the royal family in Saudi Arabia, and vice-versa, which bin Laden despises (they even took away his Saudi citizenship). The Saudi disagreed with this vehemently and said it was because of US behavior in the world.
(This is completely false. Here is a CNN interview of bin Laden by Peter Arnett in 1997:
Q1: Mr Bin Ladin, could you give us your main criticism of the Saudi royal Family that is ruling Saudi Arabia today?
Osama Bin Laden: Regarding the criticisms of the ruling regime in Saudi Arabia and the Arabian peninsula, the first one is their subordination to the US. So, our main problem is the US government while the Saudi regime is but a branch or an agent of the US. By being loyal to the US regime, the Saudi regime has committed an act against Islam. And this, based on the ruling of Shari'a [Islamic jurisprudence], casts the regime outside the religious community. Subsequently, the regime has stopped ruling people according to what God revealed, praise and glory be to Him, not to mention many other contradictory acts. When this main foundation was violated, other corrupt acts followed in every aspect of the country, the economic, the social, government services and so on.
See the text of the full interview at:
http://www.justresponse.net/Bin_Laden4.html)
As always I am irritated by someone who wants to say the US is all bad, but is unable to admit there are any faults with their own country. No country or group is all bad or all good. It was a bit much for me to listen to someone tell me that the US actions in the world are terrible when one of those actions in the world is to keep his own government in power (which might be bad, according to some, but he could not even admit the US was doing that, by training the Saudis and selling them weapons and having troops stationed there for many years). One cannot have a frank and honest dialogue if the nature of the discussion is to be, "Your country is all bad, and mine is all good." It might be a bit difficult to find a receptive audience always with that sort of message. Particularly if you add in, "and we want to kill you all".
Some websites with numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Saudi_Arabia
http://i-cias.com/e.o/saudi_2.htm
http://www.economist.com/countries/SaudiArabia/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet
Reptilian
In a Skypeland room about conspiracies, I heard a lively discussion by a British man and several others who suggested that the human race was secretly controlled by a reptilian race from a moon called "Dracos". All the American leaders are supposedly and secretly reptilians from outer space.
These people even provided "proof" for this. The proof is in the secret societies and magical symbols on the US dollar bill. The British man believed that Jesus was taken up into a spaceship by these reptilians, but also maybe Jesus was the devil. He described another race of visitors from outer space called the Annunaki who last visited the earth 3600 years ago and dumbed-down human genetic code to make them more stupid (This certainly appears to have been effective in this case). He said that the medical symbol, the caduceus, secretly represents DNA (actually the caduceus with two snakes is really the magical staff of Hermes, and the true physician's staff is the staff of Asclepius or Asklepian which has one snake http://drblayney.com/Asclepius.html).
The British man told us that the "kundalini" connects to your "chakra centers" and runs up your spine. Someone asked if the person talking had ever done any hallucinogenic drugs, and the person lecturing admitted he had in the past and had done too much (Yes maybe a bit too much). He also had overdosed on alcohol on occasion he said.
The British man said that Satan had secretly been sent to another planet. He said that if we start up any kind of technology, we will open up a wormhole that will allow Satan to come back to earth. Satan has supposedly sent us the knowledge to allow a craft to enter our realm.
The British man learned all this since his third eye opened 10 or 11 years ago. As another piece of evidence, the British man took a picture of a piece of tin foil and found it showed beasts coming through dark clouds and a dark rider on the back of a chariot. He said the Annunaki have an underground base in Antarctica. One piece of evidence for this theory they presented is that almost all leaders of the US have a rare skin disease, including George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
What is interesting is that the entire room of a couple dozen people seemed to be familiar with these stories, and believed them to be true. When I tried to get people to explain further, they sighed as though they could not believe anyone was as ignorant as me. They were astonished that I had to ask for explanations.
I asked for sources, the people in the room also provided a number of websites where I could learn about this worldview:
http://www.michaeltsarion.com/
http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/
http://www.alienvideo.net/brandon-corey-story.php
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5801978637941865090
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/
Another piece of evidence they gave is that all native cultures have stories about snake men who are shape shifters. The Indians talk about the Nagas, who are snakemen. He said he did not like to call these "conspiracy theories" since this term is used by people to discredit them.
Someone else said that UFOs are not extraterrestrials but the Chinese moving backwards in time. Another chimed in that Area 51 is just a testing area for anti-gravity space technology.
Then someone who is an "expert" in this material said that the Pledian Defense League's Seventh Fleet Command is keeping watch over the earth, but is not connected with the Syrian Federation (from the Syrian Star system; Syrians have full consciousness, and are defending our solar system). The Syrians supposedly influenced the Atlantians to alter our DNA about 50,000 years ago. He said that there is a "Karmic Board of Directors" that makes decisions for our planet that includes the Virgin Mary. He said that if you do not cleanse the body regularly by taking in salt water, you will grow scales and fangs.
I was told that people who push these conspiracy theories and are against Zionism are called "paleocons", but are not extreme right wing people like the Klu Klux Klan. Ah...such good information...
These people even provided "proof" for this. The proof is in the secret societies and magical symbols on the US dollar bill. The British man believed that Jesus was taken up into a spaceship by these reptilians, but also maybe Jesus was the devil. He described another race of visitors from outer space called the Annunaki who last visited the earth 3600 years ago and dumbed-down human genetic code to make them more stupid (This certainly appears to have been effective in this case). He said that the medical symbol, the caduceus, secretly represents DNA (actually the caduceus with two snakes is really the magical staff of Hermes, and the true physician's staff is the staff of Asclepius or Asklepian which has one snake http://drblayney.com/Asclepius.html).
The British man told us that the "kundalini" connects to your "chakra centers" and runs up your spine. Someone asked if the person talking had ever done any hallucinogenic drugs, and the person lecturing admitted he had in the past and had done too much (Yes maybe a bit too much). He also had overdosed on alcohol on occasion he said.
The British man said that Satan had secretly been sent to another planet. He said that if we start up any kind of technology, we will open up a wormhole that will allow Satan to come back to earth. Satan has supposedly sent us the knowledge to allow a craft to enter our realm.
The British man learned all this since his third eye opened 10 or 11 years ago. As another piece of evidence, the British man took a picture of a piece of tin foil and found it showed beasts coming through dark clouds and a dark rider on the back of a chariot. He said the Annunaki have an underground base in Antarctica. One piece of evidence for this theory they presented is that almost all leaders of the US have a rare skin disease, including George Bush and Ronald Reagan.
What is interesting is that the entire room of a couple dozen people seemed to be familiar with these stories, and believed them to be true. When I tried to get people to explain further, they sighed as though they could not believe anyone was as ignorant as me. They were astonished that I had to ask for explanations.
I asked for sources, the people in the room also provided a number of websites where I could learn about this worldview:
http://www.michaeltsarion.com/
http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/
http://www.alienvideo.net/brandon-corey-story.php
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5801978637941865090
http://www.jordanmaxwell.com/
Another piece of evidence they gave is that all native cultures have stories about snake men who are shape shifters. The Indians talk about the Nagas, who are snakemen. He said he did not like to call these "conspiracy theories" since this term is used by people to discredit them.
Someone else said that UFOs are not extraterrestrials but the Chinese moving backwards in time. Another chimed in that Area 51 is just a testing area for anti-gravity space technology.
Then someone who is an "expert" in this material said that the Pledian Defense League's Seventh Fleet Command is keeping watch over the earth, but is not connected with the Syrian Federation (from the Syrian Star system; Syrians have full consciousness, and are defending our solar system). The Syrians supposedly influenced the Atlantians to alter our DNA about 50,000 years ago. He said that there is a "Karmic Board of Directors" that makes decisions for our planet that includes the Virgin Mary. He said that if you do not cleanse the body regularly by taking in salt water, you will grow scales and fangs.
I was told that people who push these conspiracy theories and are against Zionism are called "paleocons", but are not extreme right wing people like the Klu Klux Klan. Ah...such good information...
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
European women
In a religious discussion in Skypeland, a prominent atheist held forth on the inadequacies of the bible the other day. He was asked what the bible meant. He started to explain. In the middle of this, someone said, "Why do European women not shave under their arms?" Someone else said, "In response to why the bible has been altered so many times, hear me out hear me out hear me out hear me out...it is like wearing a seat belt in a car..a seat belt." A girl interjected, "I can speak now...how are you?" Someone else said, "I would encourage you to study what the Catholic church is teaching you and what is in the bible. Like holy water, it is a totally misconception. The Virgin Mary is worshipped by the Catholic Church as a god."
The atheist ridiculed religion and particularly the bible. He then started to praise pseudoscience ideas like the Global Consciousness Project and claimed that it had been proven that human thought can effect random number generators on computers. Interestingly, he ridiculed the flakey ideas of others, and immediately started to promote his own new age flakey ideas.
I had previously suggested that there might be an evolutionary adaptation that confers some survival advantage to people with a capacity for spiritual belief. I was shot down aggresively by this same atheist. However, in the next breath, he quickly revealed that he had the same sort of deep-seated need himself. Interesting...
The atheist ridiculed religion and particularly the bible. He then started to praise pseudoscience ideas like the Global Consciousness Project and claimed that it had been proven that human thought can effect random number generators on computers. Interestingly, he ridiculed the flakey ideas of others, and immediately started to promote his own new age flakey ideas.
I had previously suggested that there might be an evolutionary adaptation that confers some survival advantage to people with a capacity for spiritual belief. I was shot down aggresively by this same atheist. However, in the next breath, he quickly revealed that he had the same sort of deep-seated need himself. Interesting...
Skypecasts are a magnet for idiots
Talking to a friend from Japan and another from China in Skypeland, we started musing about the strange conversations and assorted nuts we have encountered in Skypeland. It is hard to imagine that it is a representative sample, and that it is not skewed in some way, but perhaps it is. My friend from Japan said, in his opinion, "Skypecasts are a magnet for idiots".
He recounted a story of a Muslim we know who claimed to him that Buddhism is inferior to Islam since Buddhism is a man-made religion, whereas Islam comes straight from God, and he can prove it (although of course no proof is ever forthcoming).
The Chinese lady turned out to be incredibly and unusually well-informed, having read lots of "forbidden" websites because of her internet savvy. It was very refreshing, since almost none of the Chinese people that I have talked to seem to have much of an idea of Chinese history, or the views of the outside world about China. It does tell me what is in store for China if current trends continue; it will be almost impossible for the Chinese government to continue to keep their population in the dark, as Chinese society is penetrated more and more by modern technology.
Here are examples of websites the Chinese lady recommends to learn about modern China:
http://chinadocs.blogspot.com/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647228,00.html
He recounted a story of a Muslim we know who claimed to him that Buddhism is inferior to Islam since Buddhism is a man-made religion, whereas Islam comes straight from God, and he can prove it (although of course no proof is ever forthcoming).
The Chinese lady turned out to be incredibly and unusually well-informed, having read lots of "forbidden" websites because of her internet savvy. It was very refreshing, since almost none of the Chinese people that I have talked to seem to have much of an idea of Chinese history, or the views of the outside world about China. It does tell me what is in store for China if current trends continue; it will be almost impossible for the Chinese government to continue to keep their population in the dark, as Chinese society is penetrated more and more by modern technology.
Here are examples of websites the Chinese lady recommends to learn about modern China:
http://chinadocs.blogspot.com/
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1647228,00.html
Monday, October 15, 2007
I am register
I was in a cast for learning English in Skypeland. People were trying to discuss their professions and countries of origin and stumbling over their words. One or two of them were definitely drunk. A man who claimed to be involved in film-making said he is "register". I tried to find out what a "register" is and what a "register" does in film-making. People did not believe he was "register", and thought he was lying. A huge discussion ensued. I was never able to find out what they meant by a "register". People accused each other of being gay. Unfortunately, since no one else in the room was a native speaker but me, they ended up not really improving their English at all. In fact, the people in the room were shocked to find out that I was a native speaker of English.
What is an American?
In a cast in Skypeland, a young man from Poland who is studying and working in England came in. We were talking about the US, and he asked me what my background was. I told him, and as we were discussing things, I realized his vision of the US was very strange. I asked him what he thought the ethnic background of most Americans is. He guessed "Jewish". I was stunned, and I told him that only about 3.5 percent of all Americans are Jews. He found that incredibly hard to believe.
I told him that the largest ethnic group in the US is of German descent, and maybe the 2nd or third largest ethnic group in the US is of English ancestry. The next largest ethnic group is the Hispanics, who in a few short years will overtake the other ethnic groups as the largest group in the US. He found this hard to believe as well.
It is interesting to me the image of the US that people from other countries have. Amazing...
I told him that the largest ethnic group in the US is of German descent, and maybe the 2nd or third largest ethnic group in the US is of English ancestry. The next largest ethnic group is the Hispanics, who in a few short years will overtake the other ethnic groups as the largest group in the US. He found this hard to believe as well.
It is interesting to me the image of the US that people from other countries have. Amazing...
Why did God do it?
I was in a religious cast in Skypeland a few days ago, and listened to a pair of ex-Catholic Hispanic gentlemen argue with each other strenuously about religious matters. One was a fundamentalist evangelical born-again Christian, and another had steeped himself in Eastern philosophies including Buddhism and Hinduism. The Eastern philosophy proponent claimed that Moses had been incorporated into the Old Testament from an earlier description of him in the Vedas (??!??).
I asked why God had made the Earth look old, by creating all kinds of evidence for an old Earth and old Universe, including Hubble shifts and dendrochronology and layers of snow and layers of mud at the ocean bottoms and plate tectonics and records of dynamo flipping and rings of coral growth that go back tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and even hundreds of millions of years into the past. Interestingly, since I did not rely on radioisotope dating examples, which creationists are used to dismissing, they had nothing to say.
When I asked why God might have made an old-looking earth if the earth is only 6000 years old, no one had an answer and all that they did was read passages out of Genesis over and over to me, claiming that this gave the answer ( I didn't hear an answer in these familiar passages, but this should be no surprise).
One combative man was contemptuous of the notion that the earth was only 6000 years old. He said the earth was much much older. When I asked him how old, he said it definitely was more than 6000 years old, but no more than 10,000 years. (Ah...I see... What a paragon of reason! What a scintillating analysis!)
When I stated that people were able to believe whatever they wanted to believe, but should not coerce others to believe as they do, no one knew what the word "coerce" meant. I said in the US, some efforts are underway to force others to believe extreme young earth creationist ideas using the power of the state, effectively at "gunpoint". This was met with a firestorm of criticism from a couple of creationists, and I said I would be glad to explain myself but I was clearly unable to. I tried a couple of times, but they were not interested in hearing it, so I did not try any further. However, I will put my response here.
My present understanding of the situation in most US states is that it is permitted to teach creationism as science in:
*home schools
*private schools
*religious schools
Also, it is perfectly fine to teach creationism in secular publicly-funded schools in the US in classes like:
*current events
*philosophy
*political science
*civics
*religion
*debate
*public speaking
*social studies
*sociology
*politics
and so on. Creationism is not science, according to well over 99% of the scientists in relevant fields, and every major scientific organization in the US and overseas, so it should not be taught as science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Teachers are not required to teach creationism as science in most states in the US currently, although some exceptions might exist at the moment, depending on the status of assorted laws and lawsuits.
Teachers can teach creationism as science in secular publicly funded schools, but cannot be required to do so in most states and counties. Of course, teachers might be fired for doing so, so they must have the permission of their employers to do it, but if they have permission, there is no problem if they choose to teach creationism as science.
Creationists have attempted over and over in lawsuits and in the statehouse to make it illegal for teachers to refuse to teach creationism as science or in science class. They want the ability to put teachers that refuse in jail, using the power of the state. So far, they have mostly failed.
What is shocking to most foreigners to hear about the situation in the US is how few restrictions there are on the teaching of creationism in the US. It can be taught in most classes in most schools. It is only restricted from being taught as science in some schools, and then the only restriction is that teachers cannot be forced to teach it as science in most, but not all, states. The entire controversy revolves around whether creationists can force teachers in public secular, nonreligious schools to teach nonscience as science, and force teachers to promote the religion of a tiny segment of the US population at the point of a gun. This is what it is about-forcing someone who does not belong to your faith to subscribe to your faith, at gunpoint, and forcing someone else to pay for it, even if they disagree.
Addendum: Here is an interesting blog article on creationism in the US:
http://worldandnews.blogspot.com/2007_08_15_archive.html
I asked why God had made the Earth look old, by creating all kinds of evidence for an old Earth and old Universe, including Hubble shifts and dendrochronology and layers of snow and layers of mud at the ocean bottoms and plate tectonics and records of dynamo flipping and rings of coral growth that go back tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and even hundreds of millions of years into the past. Interestingly, since I did not rely on radioisotope dating examples, which creationists are used to dismissing, they had nothing to say.
When I asked why God might have made an old-looking earth if the earth is only 6000 years old, no one had an answer and all that they did was read passages out of Genesis over and over to me, claiming that this gave the answer ( I didn't hear an answer in these familiar passages, but this should be no surprise).
One combative man was contemptuous of the notion that the earth was only 6000 years old. He said the earth was much much older. When I asked him how old, he said it definitely was more than 6000 years old, but no more than 10,000 years. (Ah...I see... What a paragon of reason! What a scintillating analysis!)
When I stated that people were able to believe whatever they wanted to believe, but should not coerce others to believe as they do, no one knew what the word "coerce" meant. I said in the US, some efforts are underway to force others to believe extreme young earth creationist ideas using the power of the state, effectively at "gunpoint". This was met with a firestorm of criticism from a couple of creationists, and I said I would be glad to explain myself but I was clearly unable to. I tried a couple of times, but they were not interested in hearing it, so I did not try any further. However, I will put my response here.
My present understanding of the situation in most US states is that it is permitted to teach creationism as science in:
*home schools
*private schools
*religious schools
Also, it is perfectly fine to teach creationism in secular publicly-funded schools in the US in classes like:
*current events
*philosophy
*political science
*civics
*religion
*debate
*public speaking
*social studies
*sociology
*politics
and so on. Creationism is not science, according to well over 99% of the scientists in relevant fields, and every major scientific organization in the US and overseas, so it should not be taught as science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Teachers are not required to teach creationism as science in most states in the US currently, although some exceptions might exist at the moment, depending on the status of assorted laws and lawsuits.
Teachers can teach creationism as science in secular publicly funded schools, but cannot be required to do so in most states and counties. Of course, teachers might be fired for doing so, so they must have the permission of their employers to do it, but if they have permission, there is no problem if they choose to teach creationism as science.
Creationists have attempted over and over in lawsuits and in the statehouse to make it illegal for teachers to refuse to teach creationism as science or in science class. They want the ability to put teachers that refuse in jail, using the power of the state. So far, they have mostly failed.
What is shocking to most foreigners to hear about the situation in the US is how few restrictions there are on the teaching of creationism in the US. It can be taught in most classes in most schools. It is only restricted from being taught as science in some schools, and then the only restriction is that teachers cannot be forced to teach it as science in most, but not all, states. The entire controversy revolves around whether creationists can force teachers in public secular, nonreligious schools to teach nonscience as science, and force teachers to promote the religion of a tiny segment of the US population at the point of a gun. This is what it is about-forcing someone who does not belong to your faith to subscribe to your faith, at gunpoint, and forcing someone else to pay for it, even if they disagree.
Addendum: Here is an interesting blog article on creationism in the US:
http://worldandnews.blogspot.com/2007_08_15_archive.html
What would happen?
A question I often ask people from all over the world who are visiting Skypeland is, what do they think would happen if the US left Iraq immediately. Often even the most rabid Anti-American will tell me they think a blood bath will ensue. They are somewhat taken aback usually to be asked this. They just want to express their rage at the US and say the US should not have done what the US did (which I might agree with). However, when asked to predict the consequences of what these people are often demanding, they almost uniformly paint a very ugly scenario of regional war, a failed state becoming a base for terrorism, a vacuum for Iran to expand into, a civil war, a religious war, a genocide, etc. When I ask if they want this, these Skypeland callers are often bewildered as if they had never thought anyone would ask them such a question.
Once in a while, someone from a country adjacent to Iraq will suggest we just let the Iraqis or interlopers from neighboring countries slaughter each other since Iraqis are bad, untrustworthy, two-faced, blood thirsty, or stupid, or to "teach the Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims a lesson". I am not sure if this sounds too compelling to me... (I thought all Muslims were brothers?)
The question in front of us now is not whether the US and its coalition partners made mistakes or not in years past. The question is, what will happen if the US and its coalition partners leave now summarily? And amazingly, almost no one has ever thought about that question. Interesting....
Once in a while, someone from a country adjacent to Iraq will suggest we just let the Iraqis or interlopers from neighboring countries slaughter each other since Iraqis are bad, untrustworthy, two-faced, blood thirsty, or stupid, or to "teach the Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims a lesson". I am not sure if this sounds too compelling to me... (I thought all Muslims were brothers?)
The question in front of us now is not whether the US and its coalition partners made mistakes or not in years past. The question is, what will happen if the US and its coalition partners leave now summarily? And amazingly, almost no one has ever thought about that question. Interesting....
Media Bias
In Skypeland one can hear a range of opinions that might not be so common in normal conversations, or in the regular media. In the United States, there is a widespread perception that the mainstream media are biased to the left, or present a liberal bias. However, I have talked to many people in Skypeland from Europe and the Middle East and other places (including a few in the US) who tell me at great length that all the media in the United States have a right wing bias. To hear them tell it, all the media in the United States have an identical bias, and they only present right wing propaganda. They say that Fox News is identical to CNN which is the same as the news in the New York Times and Washington Post and on CBS, NBC and ABC. When I mention CSPAN, NPR, PBS or Air America, often these people tell me that these news outlets are identical to Fox News. What about John Stewart? Most young people get a good fraction of their news from nonstandard outlets like John Stewart's Daily Show. What about Keith Olbermann on MSNBC? Air America is the same as Rush Limbaugh? Bill O'Reilly? These are astounding claims, frankly.
Also, it is interesting to me how many people in the UK or Saudi Arabia that claim they know US media intimately and understand it in detail, but upon investigation, turn out to know almost nothing. I have had people from the UK tell me that they do not know what NPR or PBS or CSPAN are, but still tell me that they know all the media in the US and watch it or listen to it with regularity and know everything that all Americans think. I would never make such a claim for the UK; I know there are several different BBC channels but I do not know the differences between them and I know there is something called Sky News and I know the London Times, but I know very little more and I do not know the details.
Although the new technologies like Skype are breaking down these barriers between peoples and lands, there is still a long way to go. We are at the very early stages here...
Also, it is interesting to me how many people in the UK or Saudi Arabia that claim they know US media intimately and understand it in detail, but upon investigation, turn out to know almost nothing. I have had people from the UK tell me that they do not know what NPR or PBS or CSPAN are, but still tell me that they know all the media in the US and watch it or listen to it with regularity and know everything that all Americans think. I would never make such a claim for the UK; I know there are several different BBC channels but I do not know the differences between them and I know there is something called Sky News and I know the London Times, but I know very little more and I do not know the details.
Although the new technologies like Skype are breaking down these barriers between peoples and lands, there is still a long way to go. We are at the very early stages here...
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Westerners are close-minded
Part of the interesting interactions in Skypeland are associated with the "clash of cultures" or civilizations that one witnesses on a daily basis. A lesbian friend was talking to a Muslim man from Pakistan living in New York who asked her, "As a gay woman, if you were raped by a man, would you enjoy it? " She said she would not. He claimed she was lying and became irate about her answer. She asked why. He said he had read a study that said that many women who were raped experienced orgasms. My lesbian friend pointed out that enjoying the rape and having an orgasm are two different things. He flew into a rage at this, and said that all westerners are close-minded because they did not answer his question honestly and because some are offended when he asks it. Ah...I see...
The earth flies around
Several people in Skypeland tried to discuss celestial mechanics. I came in on the middle of the discussion and it was just a confused mess of nonsense. One person who fancied himself as a "science expert" said that the earth is flying around the sun once a year, and in spite of that, it was "impossible for humans to fly from the earth to the sun in a million years with all our technology". Someone objected and said that "it does not matter if it is day or night you are going to get burned". People said that the earth was not flying. The "science expert" said the earth was floating. He ranted and raved and cursed and would not let anyone else say anything. The "science expert" said the earth travelled in an "egg-shaped circle". He kept chanting "Go to Mars mother fucker".
The "science expert" spewed more and more nonsense. He started talking about photosynthesis. He went on and on about how carbon dioxide was not used by plants, but instead they used carbon monoxide. He then said it was "carbon monoxide by CO2." Someone said Van der Waals forces were responsible for the shape of a meniscus. The science expert started cursing others and said, "Van der Warls? didn't you learn that in school? Who said that? Orangutan? You guys ever get a blow job from a rabbit raccoon that just fought a porcupine? Man that sucks!" He was probably drinking and started ranting things like "Mr. Cheese is a homo" and "Hey I didn't insult your mudder and my mudder you just have a little bit of a list. Are you French? Let's talk about global warming, not that you take it in the ass with a two by four. I am laughing so hard. I am laughing so hard. I am gunna take a piss. Did I piss on the nigger?"
The "science expert" spewed more and more nonsense. He started talking about photosynthesis. He went on and on about how carbon dioxide was not used by plants, but instead they used carbon monoxide. He then said it was "carbon monoxide by CO2." Someone said Van der Waals forces were responsible for the shape of a meniscus. The science expert started cursing others and said, "Van der Warls? didn't you learn that in school? Who said that? Orangutan? You guys ever get a blow job from a rabbit raccoon that just fought a porcupine? Man that sucks!" He was probably drinking and started ranting things like "Mr. Cheese is a homo" and "Hey I didn't insult your mudder and my mudder you just have a little bit of a list. Are you French? Let's talk about global warming, not that you take it in the ass with a two by four. I am laughing so hard. I am laughing so hard. I am gunna take a piss. Did I piss on the nigger?"
When did you stop beating your wife?
In Skypeland, a lady from Vancouver who had been born in Ireland asked why Americans hated Mexicans and in particular Mexican immigrants. A couple of people from the US told her that they did not hate Mexicans. One said that she did not like the government programs for illegal Mexican immigrants when she was not able to afford the same things herself. I tried to answer the question a few times to put it in perspective, but people just interrupted constantly. I said I would be glad to answer her question, but too many others wanted to speak. I was chastised for giving a "smart answer". I tried to answer again, and again was interrupted a few times. So I gave up and went idle in the room and went to another room.
However, I decided that I should try to explain it to this woman. I sent her some instant messages:
[6:48:19 PM] D says: I would explain it to you
[6:48:23 PM] D says: but it is too difficult in here
[6:52:28 PM] IE says: you mean the mexican problem
[6:53:11 PM] D says: Well Americans are not as you depicted them
[6:53:18 PM] D says: or what you hear on skype
[6:53:35 PM] D says: no worse than Europeans
[6:53:37 PM] D says: or Canadians
[6:53:42 PM] IE says: what do you mean
[6:53:53 PM] D says: the US is quite tolerant of foreigners
[6:53:59 PM] D says: and is very good at assimilating them
[6:55:22 PM] IE says: then why do they dislike the mexican people ......i have family in the u. s....and i do understand your point
[6:55:54 PM] D says: They do not dislike Mexican people
[6:56:23 PM] D says: the number one radio station in LA is Spanish... DC...Spanish... NY...Spanish.. Miami ...Spanish... St. Louis...Spanish... Minneapolis...Spanish
[6:56:29 PM] D says: New Mexico is more than half Spanish
[6:56:36 PM] D says: California is more than half Spanish
[6:56:43 PM] IE says: the media must lie all the time then
(I never noticed the media claiming that all Americans hate the Mexican people. Interesting that she would perceive this...)
[6:56:45 PM] D says: Texas is more than half Spanish
[6:56:54 PM] D says: Florida is more than half Spanish
[6:57:01 PM] D says: In 15 years
[6:57:10 PM] D says: the largest population group in the US will be Mexican
[6:57:10 PM] IE says: why are they building a wall across the border
[6:57:18 PM] D says: Because they want to control immigration
[6:57:35 PM] D says: They have 20-30 million illegal Mexicans in the US... Almost more than the entire population of Canada
[6:57:43 PM] D says: They do not enforce the law
[6:57:45 PM] D says: and they want to
[6:57:58 PM] D says: and there is discussion about whether they should enforce the law or not
[6:58:06 PM] D says: Should the law be enforced?
[6:58:08 PM] D says: Canada does (enforce its immigration law).
[6:58:13 PM] IE says: yes it is the goverments fault
[6:58:15 PM] D says: Why should the US not enforce its law ?
[6:58:22 PM] D says: So do not complain then if they want to start enforcing
(I notice these assorted foreign loud-mouths and obnoxious jerks never have a response to this. The US is debating whether it should enforce its laws or not. They have no problem with their countries enforcing their own laws, or even advocate that the US should start to enforce its laws. But when this might appear discriminatory, they accuse the US of all kinds of terrible racist attitudes. There is clearly a large group in the US, which might even be a majority of the population, that is not in favor of enforcing US immigration law. And yet the US is still a racist country? It is amazing how glib they are when they know so little...)
[6:58:30 PM] D says: People are just not understanding
[6:58:35 PM] D says: and they make ludicrous statements
[6:58:38 PM] D says: and blame the US for being racist
[6:58:41 PM] D says: It is stupid
[6:59:06 PM] D says: I live in an area that is 75% African American
[6:59:10 PM] D says: and it is millions of people
[6:59:16 PM] IE says: i do understand and do not call me racist ...i was just asking a question
(Wow what an amazing statement. She thinks I called her racist? She had an IM transcript to refer to as well... This speaks volumes for this woman's capacity to understand English, follow a conversation or engage in reasoning.)
[6:59:16 PM] D says: around Washington DC
[6:59:23 PM] D says: I never called you racist
[6:59:27 PM] D says: When did I call you racist?
[6:59:39 PM] D says: Interesting
[6:59:41 PM] D says: I see
(I all of a sudden realized at this point that this person is unable to follow a conversation and is very defensive. She is not even able to follow a text conversation accurately. This says a lot about her...).
[6:59:58 PM] D says: And I am from Canada
[7:00:12 PM] D says: so I know plenty about the problems with Canada and the French population
[7:00:24 PM] D says: So do not lecture me too much about the "Mexican Problem"
[7:00:33 PM] D says: I even speak Joual
(Joual is the French dialect, or "l'argot" spoken in Quebec and most of the rest of Canada. Canada has two official languages, English and French and 1/4 to 1/3 of the population of Canada speaks French as a first language. Canada also has and has had a large number of language tensions between the Francophones and Anglophones, and lots of French do not like English speakers and vice-versa. Canadians are proud of their racial record but have a pretty tension-filled relationship between the two linguistic communities.)
[7:00:36 PM] D says: Do you speak Joual?
(I thought she should speak Joual if she is so concerned with intercultural harmony especially since both languages appear on every product, including milk carton and cereal box, and half the radio and television stations are French).
[7:00:58 PM] IE says: what are you talking about
[7:01:02 PM] D says: I thought so
(I immediately knew she was all talk and really did not live up to what she claimed. She did not even know about the other major culture in her adopted country.).
[7:01:08 PM] D says: Thanks so much
[7:01:11 PM] D says: Now we know
[7:01:29 PM] IE says: what is your problem .......
(A bit angry and defensive here, obviously...)
[7:01:53 PM] D says: If you want to lecture the Americans about their "racism" perhaps you should learn Joual first.
[7:01:56 PM] D says: And then come talk to me
[7:02:19 PM] D says: No offense
[7:02:27 PM] D says: but people in glass houses...
(I get annoyed when people can always see other's faults and complain about other's shortcomings bitterly, but do not even see their own).
[7:05:01 PM] IE says: you seem you do not like other peoples views or ideas
(Where on earth did she get this? When I said I disagreed with her view that Americans are all racist and hated Mexicans and presented evidence to the contrary? She is allowed to have her view. She just does not want to hear it disputed at all or evidence to the contrary I guess...Interestingly, she seems to harbor similar attitudes to some of the other Irish people I talked to. I wonder why that is?).
[7:05:22 PM] IE says: because you know everything
[7:06:13 PM] D says: Ma'am you are allowed to believe whatever you like.
[7:06:21 PM] D says: But when you say things like "when did you stop beating your wife ?"
[7:06:25 PM] D says: you might get a certain response
[7:06:28 PM] D says: you understand?
[7:06:43 PM] D says: I will not waste more time on you
[7:06:54 PM] IE says: i never said that statement
(Wow, that is amazing. I guess she does not understand metaphoric and allegorical statements, or figures of speech. She took it completely literally, obviously. The question "when did you stop beating your wife?" is a very well known example in English and logic of a "loaded question" or plurium interrogationum, a type of logical fallacy:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question).
[7:06:57 PM] D says: since it is clear you are not interested in other information or other views
[7:07:07 PM] D says: And you do not seem to be able to understand much English
[7:07:10 PM] D says: so good day to you
(I decided I had had enough of this nonsense and I figured I would end it as soon as possible).
[7:08:17 PM] IE says: when did i say that statement "when did you stop beating your wife "
[7:08:44 PM] IE says: i am very open to all views
[7:08:59 PM] D says: Clearly.
(Well I was being somewhat sarcastic here of course...).
[7:09:07 PM] IE says: i do understand english
[7:09:12 PM] D says: I noticed.
(Of course, I was being sarcastic again...).
[7:11:16 PM] IE says: when did i say that statement because that is not the way i live my life ....i do not speak like that......you must have mixed me up with another person
[7:21:12 PM] IE says: you can not make a statement like you did not think you are correct ...
(She still does not get it, of course).
[8:39:59 PM] D says: You have made it eminently clear what kind of person you are and what your views are and your ability to understand English idiom and figures of speech and follow a conversation.
[8:40:38 PM] D says: You have revealed inadvertently your own cultural biases and awareness and I think it is quite telling. Thanks so much.
[8:50:30 PM] IE says: you seem very judgemental
[9:01:58 PM] D says: Me?
[9:02:20 PM] IE says: yes
[9:02:31 PM] D says: You can read it all later when it is published. I will send you a link so you can see what impression you created. But I suspect you will not understand it
[9:04:20 PM] IE says: you did not tell me when you heard me say the statement "when you stop beating your wife"
[9:04:52 PM] IE says: where is your answer
[9:10:37 PM] D says: I will let you read it in the blog entry
[9:11:09 PM] IE says: what blog
[9:11:30 PM] IE says: I never used that statement
(Well duh...)
[9:13:50 PM] D says: http://skypelandadventures.blogspot.com/2007/10/when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife_14.html
After this, I did not hear back from her... I wonder why not?
However, I decided that I should try to explain it to this woman. I sent her some instant messages:
[6:48:19 PM] D says: I would explain it to you
[6:48:23 PM] D says: but it is too difficult in here
[6:52:28 PM] IE says: you mean the mexican problem
[6:53:11 PM] D says: Well Americans are not as you depicted them
[6:53:18 PM] D says: or what you hear on skype
[6:53:35 PM] D says: no worse than Europeans
[6:53:37 PM] D says: or Canadians
[6:53:42 PM] IE says: what do you mean
[6:53:53 PM] D says: the US is quite tolerant of foreigners
[6:53:59 PM] D says: and is very good at assimilating them
[6:55:22 PM] IE says: then why do they dislike the mexican people ......i have family in the u. s....and i do understand your point
[6:55:54 PM] D says: They do not dislike Mexican people
[6:56:23 PM] D says: the number one radio station in LA is Spanish... DC...Spanish... NY...Spanish.. Miami ...Spanish... St. Louis...Spanish... Minneapolis...Spanish
[6:56:29 PM] D says: New Mexico is more than half Spanish
[6:56:36 PM] D says: California is more than half Spanish
[6:56:43 PM] IE says: the media must lie all the time then
(I never noticed the media claiming that all Americans hate the Mexican people. Interesting that she would perceive this...)
[6:56:45 PM] D says: Texas is more than half Spanish
[6:56:54 PM] D says: Florida is more than half Spanish
[6:57:01 PM] D says: In 15 years
[6:57:10 PM] D says: the largest population group in the US will be Mexican
[6:57:10 PM] IE says: why are they building a wall across the border
[6:57:18 PM] D says: Because they want to control immigration
[6:57:35 PM] D says: They have 20-30 million illegal Mexicans in the US... Almost more than the entire population of Canada
[6:57:43 PM] D says: They do not enforce the law
[6:57:45 PM] D says: and they want to
[6:57:58 PM] D says: and there is discussion about whether they should enforce the law or not
[6:58:06 PM] D says: Should the law be enforced?
[6:58:08 PM] D says: Canada does (enforce its immigration law).
[6:58:13 PM] IE says: yes it is the goverments fault
[6:58:15 PM] D says: Why should the US not enforce its law ?
[6:58:22 PM] D says: So do not complain then if they want to start enforcing
(I notice these assorted foreign loud-mouths and obnoxious jerks never have a response to this. The US is debating whether it should enforce its laws or not. They have no problem with their countries enforcing their own laws, or even advocate that the US should start to enforce its laws. But when this might appear discriminatory, they accuse the US of all kinds of terrible racist attitudes. There is clearly a large group in the US, which might even be a majority of the population, that is not in favor of enforcing US immigration law. And yet the US is still a racist country? It is amazing how glib they are when they know so little...)
[6:58:30 PM] D says: People are just not understanding
[6:58:35 PM] D says: and they make ludicrous statements
[6:58:38 PM] D says: and blame the US for being racist
[6:58:41 PM] D says: It is stupid
[6:59:06 PM] D says: I live in an area that is 75% African American
[6:59:10 PM] D says: and it is millions of people
[6:59:16 PM] IE says: i do understand and do not call me racist ...i was just asking a question
(Wow what an amazing statement. She thinks I called her racist? She had an IM transcript to refer to as well... This speaks volumes for this woman's capacity to understand English, follow a conversation or engage in reasoning.)
[6:59:16 PM] D says: around Washington DC
[6:59:23 PM] D says: I never called you racist
[6:59:27 PM] D says: When did I call you racist?
[6:59:39 PM] D says: Interesting
[6:59:41 PM] D says: I see
(I all of a sudden realized at this point that this person is unable to follow a conversation and is very defensive. She is not even able to follow a text conversation accurately. This says a lot about her...).
[6:59:58 PM] D says: And I am from Canada
[7:00:12 PM] D says: so I know plenty about the problems with Canada and the French population
[7:00:24 PM] D says: So do not lecture me too much about the "Mexican Problem"
[7:00:33 PM] D says: I even speak Joual
(Joual is the French dialect, or "l'argot" spoken in Quebec and most of the rest of Canada. Canada has two official languages, English and French and 1/4 to 1/3 of the population of Canada speaks French as a first language. Canada also has and has had a large number of language tensions between the Francophones and Anglophones, and lots of French do not like English speakers and vice-versa. Canadians are proud of their racial record but have a pretty tension-filled relationship between the two linguistic communities.)
[7:00:36 PM] D says: Do you speak Joual?
(I thought she should speak Joual if she is so concerned with intercultural harmony especially since both languages appear on every product, including milk carton and cereal box, and half the radio and television stations are French).
[7:00:58 PM] IE says: what are you talking about
[7:01:02 PM] D says: I thought so
(I immediately knew she was all talk and really did not live up to what she claimed. She did not even know about the other major culture in her adopted country.).
[7:01:08 PM] D says: Thanks so much
[7:01:11 PM] D says: Now we know
[7:01:29 PM] IE says: what is your problem .......
(A bit angry and defensive here, obviously...)
[7:01:53 PM] D says: If you want to lecture the Americans about their "racism" perhaps you should learn Joual first.
[7:01:56 PM] D says: And then come talk to me
[7:02:19 PM] D says: No offense
[7:02:27 PM] D says: but people in glass houses...
(I get annoyed when people can always see other's faults and complain about other's shortcomings bitterly, but do not even see their own).
[7:05:01 PM] IE says: you seem you do not like other peoples views or ideas
(Where on earth did she get this? When I said I disagreed with her view that Americans are all racist and hated Mexicans and presented evidence to the contrary? She is allowed to have her view. She just does not want to hear it disputed at all or evidence to the contrary I guess...Interestingly, she seems to harbor similar attitudes to some of the other Irish people I talked to. I wonder why that is?).
[7:05:22 PM] IE says: because you know everything
[7:06:13 PM] D says: Ma'am you are allowed to believe whatever you like.
[7:06:21 PM] D says: But when you say things like "when did you stop beating your wife ?"
[7:06:25 PM] D says: you might get a certain response
[7:06:28 PM] D says: you understand?
[7:06:43 PM] D says: I will not waste more time on you
[7:06:54 PM] IE says: i never said that statement
(Wow, that is amazing. I guess she does not understand metaphoric and allegorical statements, or figures of speech. She took it completely literally, obviously. The question "when did you stop beating your wife?" is a very well known example in English and logic of a "loaded question" or plurium interrogationum, a type of logical fallacy:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question).
[7:06:57 PM] D says: since it is clear you are not interested in other information or other views
[7:07:07 PM] D says: And you do not seem to be able to understand much English
[7:07:10 PM] D says: so good day to you
(I decided I had had enough of this nonsense and I figured I would end it as soon as possible).
[7:08:17 PM] IE says: when did i say that statement "when did you stop beating your wife "
[7:08:44 PM] IE says: i am very open to all views
[7:08:59 PM] D says: Clearly.
(Well I was being somewhat sarcastic here of course...).
[7:09:07 PM] IE says: i do understand english
[7:09:12 PM] D says: I noticed.
(Of course, I was being sarcastic again...).
[7:11:16 PM] IE says: when did i say that statement because that is not the way i live my life ....i do not speak like that......you must have mixed me up with another person
[7:21:12 PM] IE says: you can not make a statement like you did not think you are correct ...
(She still does not get it, of course).
[8:39:59 PM] D says: You have made it eminently clear what kind of person you are and what your views are and your ability to understand English idiom and figures of speech and follow a conversation.
[8:40:38 PM] D says: You have revealed inadvertently your own cultural biases and awareness and I think it is quite telling. Thanks so much.
[8:50:30 PM] IE says: you seem very judgemental
[9:01:58 PM] D says: Me?
[9:02:20 PM] IE says: yes
[9:02:31 PM] D says: You can read it all later when it is published. I will send you a link so you can see what impression you created. But I suspect you will not understand it
[9:04:20 PM] IE says: you did not tell me when you heard me say the statement "when you stop beating your wife"
[9:04:52 PM] IE says: where is your answer
[9:10:37 PM] D says: I will let you read it in the blog entry
[9:11:09 PM] IE says: what blog
[9:11:30 PM] IE says: I never used that statement
(Well duh...)
[9:13:50 PM] D says: http://skypelandadventures.blogspot.com/2007/10/when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife_14.html
After this, I did not hear back from her... I wonder why not?
Hypocrisy
One thing that is interesting to observe in Skypeland is the hypocrisy of the average person. Again, I talked to a young lass from Ireland who wanted to talk negatively about the US. She asked my friend from Japan what his impression of the US education is, since he had lived in the US during high school for one year. The Japanese man said that the US education standards in high school for science and mathematics are quite low, but advanced education in the US is the best in the world. The Irish lady did not understand this, so I tried to explain it.
I gave as an example, the seismology graduate schools; the US has perhaps 10 world-class graduate schools for seismology, the Netherlands has maybe 1 and the UK has 1, Japan only one and maybe Russia has one as well. The Irish lady did not understand this, stumbling over her words and asking us what "size-ology or zoo-logy" is. I tried to explain it, and she became defensive and claimed that there was no reason to know anything about earthquakes in Europe so of course they did not need to study it. She said that the UK was much smaller than the US so it had no reason to have any institutions studying this subject. When I tried to point out that the US constitutes less than 5% of the world's population but has most of the world's best institutions in this area, she became enraged and talked over me and would not let me speak or discuss my points.
In the course of the discussion, she said she had never heard of Cambridge University, and was quite disdainful of me for asking about it or mentioning it since it was clearly not a very important institution. She presented all her points in a smug, self-assured and confident fashion, positive she had demonstrated her incredible depth of knowledge and perspicacity, effectively eviscerating all opposition or arguments based on anything so ridiculous as facts or evidence or data or "satistitics".
She launched into a huge discussion about how racist and selfish and greedy and materialistic the Americans are, although she said, "I don't know any Americans personally." I think all her knowledge comes from a couple of Skypeland conversations and some discussions with her friends and some reading of media accounts. Her accent was so thick I could not even understand what she was saying a good fraction of the time.
She prided herself on never changing her opinions no matter what the evidence or facts are. She said, "Facts don't really mean much to me. I just believe in what I believe in. I just hold to my opinions no matter what." (Ah, sounds very rational, sensible and reasonable...)
She interrupted a lot and talked over me. Then she decided she was going to prove I was wrong when I had looked up statistics and data about Irish immigration. She presented the following website:
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_04_04/uk/immigrants_to_ireland_continue.htm
She claimed this proved that Ireland was composed of 19% immigrants and this showed I was wrong when I said it was around 8.4% immigrants. She also claimed it proved that I was wrong when I said that Ireland was 98% European.
I said I would look at the website later, but she badgered me and attacked me and challenged me repeatedly, saying I did not look immediately since I was afraid of being shown to be wrong and stupid. She was gloating and so combative, I decided I would look at the article she had found.
So I looked at the website. Sure enough, it said that in the year 2020, Ireland was expected to have 19% immigrants, but at present it has about 8% immigrants. It also said that most of the immigrants were from Eastern Europe, completely consistent with the information I had found previously. (People like this are glad to attack and deride and insult others, and even positively gleeful about it, but do not like the same tactics used on them. As I say always, if you dish it out, you better be able to take it. This sort of discourse is a two-way street. In regular life, I am unable to call people on this sort of dishonest and offensive tactic, but in Skypeland I do it, and I do it aggressively. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And if you accuse another group of some bad behavior based on bad evidence or no evidence, except to be called on it, particularly if your own group exhibits the same or worse behaviors. Bullies always hate it when someone stands up to them, however...)
She apologized for not reading carefully. I said that before she lectured others, and attacked them for supposedly being racist and narrow and selfish and greedy, she should look at home first. She said that she was ok in her home and that she was bringing her son up to not be racist and to be open to others. I said that the expression "look at home" is more of a figure of speech, and I was referring to her town or her county or her country or her region, not so much her house, or her bedroom. This seemed to puzzle her. She did not seem to understand what this meant. I realized that most of what I told this person probably went right over her head. Just as many of her pronunciations were so difficult to understand for me that I missed a lot of what she said...
I tried to point out that her drawing conclusions based on a few Skypeland conversations was really unreasonable. If I did the same, I would believe that all the Irish were drunken ignorant fools, and have the worst anti-Irish propaganda and rumors spread by the English and those opposed to Irish immigration to the US confirmed. She did not buy this and just became more angry. She was positive she was right, and said she wanted just to "hold to my opinions no matter what". I do find it interesting that I have met several people like this, all from Ireland however. I do not myself believe that it constitutes a pattern, but is more likely a statistical anomaly and the result of a small sample bias.
Addendum: People who are Republicans, or Religious fundamentalists always take umbrage when they are pilloried for misdeeds that Democrats or atheists commit as well. However, the difficulty arises for these people in that they are setting themselves up on some sort of pedestal, and claiming they are superior than their opponents because they are more ethical or morally superior. When it turns out that this is not true, the repulsion of the public and the rejection is even worse, since they have displayed a bit of hypocrisy. It is not the bad behavior so much as it is the hypocrisy.
And so it is in this case, and similar cases documented in this blog. If a person claims some sort of superiority over another group, then they had better be beyond reproach when their behavior is examined, particularly in regards to the same issue. This is the origin of the age-old expression, "People in glass houses should not throw stones", or the bible passage, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Mathew 7:3).
It is not a problem that some Irish or others might be ignorant, or selfish, or display completely irrational and stupid attitudes; one might expect this of any group. However, to harbor brazen pride, narrowness, shallowness, defensiveness and a combative superior mindset while still regularly hosting Skypecasts with names like:
Yankees are No Brainers!! True or false? Only Yanks with an IQ of 130 and over please.
leaves one open to criticism. I daresay, the host of this Skypecast would be unlikely to meet the qualifications even if the standard for admission was set at the mean level. It is ok to be stupid, but to be aggressively stupid is really asking for trouble.
I gave as an example, the seismology graduate schools; the US has perhaps 10 world-class graduate schools for seismology, the Netherlands has maybe 1 and the UK has 1, Japan only one and maybe Russia has one as well. The Irish lady did not understand this, stumbling over her words and asking us what "size-ology or zoo-logy" is. I tried to explain it, and she became defensive and claimed that there was no reason to know anything about earthquakes in Europe so of course they did not need to study it. She said that the UK was much smaller than the US so it had no reason to have any institutions studying this subject. When I tried to point out that the US constitutes less than 5% of the world's population but has most of the world's best institutions in this area, she became enraged and talked over me and would not let me speak or discuss my points.
In the course of the discussion, she said she had never heard of Cambridge University, and was quite disdainful of me for asking about it or mentioning it since it was clearly not a very important institution. She presented all her points in a smug, self-assured and confident fashion, positive she had demonstrated her incredible depth of knowledge and perspicacity, effectively eviscerating all opposition or arguments based on anything so ridiculous as facts or evidence or data or "satistitics".
She launched into a huge discussion about how racist and selfish and greedy and materialistic the Americans are, although she said, "I don't know any Americans personally." I think all her knowledge comes from a couple of Skypeland conversations and some discussions with her friends and some reading of media accounts. Her accent was so thick I could not even understand what she was saying a good fraction of the time.
She prided herself on never changing her opinions no matter what the evidence or facts are. She said, "Facts don't really mean much to me. I just believe in what I believe in. I just hold to my opinions no matter what." (Ah, sounds very rational, sensible and reasonable...)
She interrupted a lot and talked over me. Then she decided she was going to prove I was wrong when I had looked up statistics and data about Irish immigration. She presented the following website:
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2006_04_04/uk/immigrants_to_ireland_continue.htm
She claimed this proved that Ireland was composed of 19% immigrants and this showed I was wrong when I said it was around 8.4% immigrants. She also claimed it proved that I was wrong when I said that Ireland was 98% European.
I said I would look at the website later, but she badgered me and attacked me and challenged me repeatedly, saying I did not look immediately since I was afraid of being shown to be wrong and stupid. She was gloating and so combative, I decided I would look at the article she had found.
So I looked at the website. Sure enough, it said that in the year 2020, Ireland was expected to have 19% immigrants, but at present it has about 8% immigrants. It also said that most of the immigrants were from Eastern Europe, completely consistent with the information I had found previously. (People like this are glad to attack and deride and insult others, and even positively gleeful about it, but do not like the same tactics used on them. As I say always, if you dish it out, you better be able to take it. This sort of discourse is a two-way street. In regular life, I am unable to call people on this sort of dishonest and offensive tactic, but in Skypeland I do it, and I do it aggressively. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. And if you accuse another group of some bad behavior based on bad evidence or no evidence, except to be called on it, particularly if your own group exhibits the same or worse behaviors. Bullies always hate it when someone stands up to them, however...)
She apologized for not reading carefully. I said that before she lectured others, and attacked them for supposedly being racist and narrow and selfish and greedy, she should look at home first. She said that she was ok in her home and that she was bringing her son up to not be racist and to be open to others. I said that the expression "look at home" is more of a figure of speech, and I was referring to her town or her county or her country or her region, not so much her house, or her bedroom. This seemed to puzzle her. She did not seem to understand what this meant. I realized that most of what I told this person probably went right over her head. Just as many of her pronunciations were so difficult to understand for me that I missed a lot of what she said...
I tried to point out that her drawing conclusions based on a few Skypeland conversations was really unreasonable. If I did the same, I would believe that all the Irish were drunken ignorant fools, and have the worst anti-Irish propaganda and rumors spread by the English and those opposed to Irish immigration to the US confirmed. She did not buy this and just became more angry. She was positive she was right, and said she wanted just to "hold to my opinions no matter what". I do find it interesting that I have met several people like this, all from Ireland however. I do not myself believe that it constitutes a pattern, but is more likely a statistical anomaly and the result of a small sample bias.
Addendum: People who are Republicans, or Religious fundamentalists always take umbrage when they are pilloried for misdeeds that Democrats or atheists commit as well. However, the difficulty arises for these people in that they are setting themselves up on some sort of pedestal, and claiming they are superior than their opponents because they are more ethical or morally superior. When it turns out that this is not true, the repulsion of the public and the rejection is even worse, since they have displayed a bit of hypocrisy. It is not the bad behavior so much as it is the hypocrisy.
And so it is in this case, and similar cases documented in this blog. If a person claims some sort of superiority over another group, then they had better be beyond reproach when their behavior is examined, particularly in regards to the same issue. This is the origin of the age-old expression, "People in glass houses should not throw stones", or the bible passage, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" (Mathew 7:3).
It is not a problem that some Irish or others might be ignorant, or selfish, or display completely irrational and stupid attitudes; one might expect this of any group. However, to harbor brazen pride, narrowness, shallowness, defensiveness and a combative superior mindset while still regularly hosting Skypecasts with names like:
Yankees are No Brainers!! True or false? Only Yanks with an IQ of 130 and over please.
leaves one open to criticism. I daresay, the host of this Skypecast would be unlikely to meet the qualifications even if the standard for admission was set at the mean level. It is ok to be stupid, but to be aggressively stupid is really asking for trouble.
You are so stupid
We were having a reasonably intelligent conversation in Skypeland when an immigrant from New York with a thick accent came in to tell us how stupid we were. I asked him, if he was so smart, why did he not say something intelligent? He replied "E=m c^2". I asked him what that meant. He said "Energy equals motion times motion". I immediately informed him that he had just revealed his copious ignorance. The host told him that the equation actually meant "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared". He was then asked what was nu. He said he did not know. He was told it was "v/c", and he said he did not know, which lead to him being the butt of further jokes, and bragging in his broken English how intelligent he was, and providing an immense amount of evidence that he was not only ignorant, but supremely unintelligent. I mentioned "come to Jesus" and he immediately flew off the handle and started screaming and cursing and threatening us. Ah...a great genius of our time. And so religious too.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Cindy Sheehan
A massive bit of confusion erupted in Skypeland in a room run by people from the UK. The UK people claimed that no one is allowed to protest the war in the UK; if people do protest the war, supposedly they would be arrested. I said that people were allowed to protest the war in the US. The people in the UK disagreed. I said we could go down right now and protest on the steps of the US capital if they wanted. The people in the UK disagreed and said something about the USA Patriot Act. I said we could protest outside the White House if we wanted. People in the room said one could not get close to the White House after 9/11. I said this was incorrect. Someone mentioned Cindy Sheehan and said she was arrested outside the White House. I said she might have tried to get arrested, but I supported her right to protest (Reading the article I linked in here, clearly Cindy Sheehan and her compatriots tried to get arrested and were only required to pay a fine of $50).
A lady from the UK came up and asked over and over who the lady was we were talking about. We told her it was Cindy Sheehan. The lady from the UK said Cindy Sheehan should show some respect. I said Cindy Sheehan is allowed to protest but she might have done something to try to get arrested. The UK lady said I should be ashamed of myself.
The UK lady then launched into a long diatribe about how Cindy Sheehan had lost her son over nothing and Cindy Sheehan was allowed to be upset and should be allowed to protest. The UK lady went on and on and on about how terrible I am and the UK lady said I should show respect. The UK lady then asked what lady we were talking about, and was told that we were talking about Cindy Sheehan. I said several times I thought she was confused, since we seemed to agree that Cindy Sheehan should be allowed to protest if she wanted. I noted that the lady from the UK seemed to want to pick a fight with me.
The UK lady again asked what woman we were talking about. We said it was Cindy Sheehan. This just made the lady from the UK angrier yet. She continued to attack me, and I said she was confused, since we agreed that Cindy Sheehan should be allowed to protest. The host of the room shut my microphone off and then turned it back on after lecturing me a bit for being a jerk. The lady from the UK again asked what lady we were talking about, and was told we were talking about Cindy Sheehan. But by then, I had had enough, and I said I would turn off my microphone and just write what I had heard. This made them even angrier still. Oh well... (As I think back about this incident, I cannot for the life of me understand it. She seemed to have a complete inability to follow a conversation, and seemed to want desperately to get into an argument, even if it meant contradicting herself every few minutes...)
A lady from the UK came up and asked over and over who the lady was we were talking about. We told her it was Cindy Sheehan. The lady from the UK said Cindy Sheehan should show some respect. I said Cindy Sheehan is allowed to protest but she might have done something to try to get arrested. The UK lady said I should be ashamed of myself.
The UK lady then launched into a long diatribe about how Cindy Sheehan had lost her son over nothing and Cindy Sheehan was allowed to be upset and should be allowed to protest. The UK lady went on and on and on about how terrible I am and the UK lady said I should show respect. The UK lady then asked what lady we were talking about, and was told that we were talking about Cindy Sheehan. I said several times I thought she was confused, since we seemed to agree that Cindy Sheehan should be allowed to protest if she wanted. I noted that the lady from the UK seemed to want to pick a fight with me.
The UK lady again asked what woman we were talking about. We said it was Cindy Sheehan. This just made the lady from the UK angrier yet. She continued to attack me, and I said she was confused, since we agreed that Cindy Sheehan should be allowed to protest. The host of the room shut my microphone off and then turned it back on after lecturing me a bit for being a jerk. The lady from the UK again asked what lady we were talking about, and was told we were talking about Cindy Sheehan. But by then, I had had enough, and I said I would turn off my microphone and just write what I had heard. This made them even angrier still. Oh well... (As I think back about this incident, I cannot for the life of me understand it. She seemed to have a complete inability to follow a conversation, and seemed to want desperately to get into an argument, even if it meant contradicting herself every few minutes...)
Thursday, October 11, 2007
That bus was rerouted
A man in the UK in Skypeland said that the bus that blew up in the UK in the July 7, 2005 attacks was the only bus that was rerouted after the bombs in the subway (This is a prominent part of the conspiracy theories that claim the UK government attacked the UK on 7/7:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm
http://www.illuminati-news.com/london.htm).
Someone said that the IRA attacked the UK for years and the UK never lost a single right because of the IRA attacks, and that now they are losing more and more rights every day. (Hmmm...So the roughly 4.2 million CCTV video cameras in various places in the UK monitoring people, starting massively in 1994 had nothing to do with the IRA planting bombs, and the desire to combat crime and terrorism in the UK? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television#Crime_registration I guess these installations of CCTV cameras throughout the 1990s all had to do with the July 7, 2005 London subway attacks then? )
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/150705busbombing.htm
http://www.illuminati-news.com/london.htm).
Someone said that the IRA attacked the UK for years and the UK never lost a single right because of the IRA attacks, and that now they are losing more and more rights every day. (Hmmm...So the roughly 4.2 million CCTV video cameras in various places in the UK monitoring people, starting massively in 1994 had nothing to do with the IRA planting bombs, and the desire to combat crime and terrorism in the UK? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-circuit_television#Crime_registration I guess these installations of CCTV cameras throughout the 1990s all had to do with the July 7, 2005 London subway attacks then? )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
