Friday, September 14, 2012

Schrodinger's Murderer

In one of his videos, Justicar (aka integralmath) mentioned that Schrodinger’s Rapist would be a notion that is unacceptable if we were talking about black people instead of men. I thought this was a brilliant assessment so I took on the task of editing the original post and converting some key elements of the piece for the sake of comparing it to any other subset of the human population. I changed any reference to males, men, boys, gentlemen, guys, etc., to black people. I also changed any references to females, women, girls, ladies, gals, etc., to white people. And finally, I changed rape for murder. You may also notice that some key words may have changed to keep in the spirit of the original post. Please note that any changes have not been made with the intention of changing the meaning (spirit) of the original post, but rather to allow for a logical continuance in the script. Here is the original post, in case you wish to compare just how much edition was done on the blog post.

GUEST BLOGGER STARLING: SCHRÖDINGER’S MURDERER: OR A BLACK PERSON’S GUIDE TO APPROACHING STRANGE WHITE PEOPLE WITHOUT BEING MACED

Posted on October 8, 2009 by Sweet Machine, re-edited by Spinoza’s Psyche

Black people. Thank you for reading.

Let me start out by assuring you that I understand you are a good sort of person. You are kind to children and animals. You respect the elderly. You donate to charity. You tell jokes without laughing at your own punchlines. You respect white people. You like white people. In fact, you would really like to have a mutually respectful and friendly relationship with a white person. Unfortunately, you don’t yet know that white person—he or she isn’t working with you, nor have you been introduced through mutual friends or drawn to the same activities. So you must look further afield to encounter this person.

So far, so good. Miss LonelyHearts, your humble instructor, approves. Human connection, love, friendship: there is nothing wrong with these yearnings.

Now, you want to become acquainted with a white person you see in public. The first thing you need to understand is that white people are dealing with a set of challenges and concerns that are strange to you, a black person. To begin with, we would rather not be killed or otherwise violently assaulted.

“But wait! I don’t want that, either!”

Well, no. But do you think about it all the time? Is preventing violent assault or murder part of your daily routine, rather than merely something you do when you venture into war zones? Because, for white people, it is. When I go out with black friends, I always leave the black person’s full name and contact information written next to my computer monitor. This is so the cops can find my body if I go missing. My best friend will call or e-mail me the next morning, and I must answer that call or e-mail before noon-ish, or my friend begins to worry. If my friend doesn’t hear from me by three or so, he or she will call the police. My activities after dark are curtailed. Unless I am in a densely-occupied, well-lit space, I won’t go out alone. Even then, I prefer to have a white friend or two, or my dogs, with me. Do you follow rules like these?

So when you, a stranger, approach me, I have to ask myself: Will this black man murder me?

Do you think I’m overreacting? One in every six American whites will be robbed or mugged in their lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any murderers, but consider the sheer number of murders that must occur. These murders are not all committed by scary black men, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the black guys you know are murderers, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every murderer commits an average of ten murders (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of murderers in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym. How do I know that you, the nice black guy who wants nothing more than companionship and friendship, are not this murderer?

I don’t.

When you approach me in public, you are Schrödinger’s murderer. You may or may not be a black man who would commit murder. I won’t know for sure unless you start assaulting me. I can’t see inside your head, and I don’t know your intentions. If you expect me to trust you—to accept you at face value as a nice sort of black—you are not only failing to respect my reasonable caution, you are being cavalier about my personal safety.

Fortunately, you’re a good black guy. We’ve already established that. Now that you’re aware that there’s a problem, you are going to go out of your way to fix it, and to make the white people with whom you interact feel as safe as possible.

To begin with, you must accept that I set my own risk tolerance. When you approach me, I will begin to evaluate the possibility you will do me harm. That possibility is never 0%. For some whites, particularly whites who have been victims of violent assaults, any level of risk is unacceptable. Those whites do not want to be approached, no matter how nice you are or how much you’d like to befriend them. Okay? That’s their right. Don’t get pissy about it. Whites are under no obligation to hear the sales pitch before deciding they are not in the market to buy.

The second important point: you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment. We are going to be paying close attention to your appearance and behavior and matching those signs to our idea of a threat.

This means that some black guys should never approach strange white people in public. Specifically, if you have truly unusual standards of personal cleanliness, if you are the prophet of your own religion, or if you have tattoos of gang symbols or Technicolor cockroaches all over your face and neck, you are just never going to get a good response approaching a white person cold. That doesn’t mean you’re doomed to a life of solitude, but I suggest you start with internet hanging, where you can put your unusual traits out there and find a white friend who will appreciate them.

Are you wearing a tee-shirt making a murder joke? NOT A GOOD CHOICE—not in general, and definitely not when approaching a strange white person.

Pay attention to the environment. Look around. Are you in a dark alley? Then probably you ought not approach a white person and try to strike up a conversation. The same applies if you are alone with a white in most public places. If the public place is a closed area (a subway car, an elevator, a bus), even a crowded one, you may not realize that the white’s ability to flee in case of threat is limited. Ask yourself, “If I were dangerous, would this white person be safe in this space with me?” If the answer is no, then it isn’t appropriate to approach this person.

On the other hand, if you are both at church accompanied by your mothers, who are lifelong best friends, the white person is as close as it comes to safe. That is to say, still not 100% safe. But the odds are pretty good.

The third point: White people are communicating all the time. Learn to understand and respect white people’s communication to you.

You want to say Hi to the nice white person on the subway. How will they react? Fortunately, I can tell you with some certainty, because he or she is already sending messages to you. Looking out the window, reading a book, working on a computer, arms folded across chest, body away from you = do not disturb. So, y’know, don’t disturb this person. Really. Even to say that you like their hair, shoes, or book. A compliment is not always a reason for white people to smile and say thank you. You are a threat, remember? You are Schrödinger’s murderer. Don’t assume that whatever you have to say will win them over with charm or flattery. Believe what the white is signaling, and back off.

If you speak, and the white person responds in a monosyllabic way without looking at you, they are saying, “I don’t want to be rude, but please leave me alone.” You don’t know why. It could be “Please leave me alone because I am trying to memorize Beowulf.” It could be “Please leave me alone because you are a scary, scary man with breath like a water buffalo.” It could be “Please leave me alone because I am planning my assassination of a major geopolitical figure and I will have to kill you if you are able to recognize me and blow my cover.”

On the other hand, if the white person is turned towards you, making eye contact, and they respond in a friendly and talkative manner when you speak to them, you are getting a green light. You can continue the conversation until you start getting signals to back off.

The fourth point: If you fail to respect what white people say, you label yourself a problem.

There’s a black man with whom I went out on a single date—afternoon coffee, for one hour by the clock—on July 25th. In the two days after the date, he sent me about fifteen e-mails, scolding me for non-responsiveness. I e-mailed him back, saying, “Look, this is a disproportionate response to a single date. You are making me uncomfortable. Do not contact me again.” It is now October 7th. Does he still e-mail?

Yeah. He does. About every two weeks.

This black man scores higher on the threat level scale than Man with the Cockroach Tattoos. (Who, after all, is guilty of nothing more than terrifying bad taste.) You see, Mr. E-mail has made it clear that he ignores what I say when he wants something from me. Now, I don’t know if he is an actual murderer, and I sincerely hope he’s not. But he is certainly Schrödinger’s murderer, and this particular Schrödinger’s murderer has a probability ratio greater than one in sixty. Because a black dude who ignores a white person’s NO in a non-sexual setting is more likely to ignore NO in a sexual setting, as well.

So if you speak to a white person who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps his or her right to be left alone. If you pursue a conversation when they tried to cut it off, you send a message. It is that your desire to speak trumps their right to be left alone. And each of those messages indicates that you believe your desires are a legitimate reason to override their rights.

For white people, who are watching you very closely to determine how much of a threat you are, this is an important piece of data.

The fifth and last point: Don’t murder. Nor should you commit these similar but less severe offenses: don’t assault. Don’t grope. Don’t constrain. Don’t brandish. Don’t expose yourself. Don’t threaten with physical violence. Don’t threaten with sexual violence.

Shouldn’t this go without saying? Of course it should. Sadly, that’s not the world I live in. You may be beginning to realize that it’s not the world you live in, either.

Miss LonelyHearts wishes you happiness and success in your search for white companionship.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

American Academy of Pediatrics: It’s OK to mutilate the genitalia of your babies, if it saves us a few dollars in the future

The American Academy of Pediatrics has changed its stance on circumcision after publishing a controversial paper on its journal Pediatrics. According to the AAP, the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This comes from data that show that circumcision may protect from STDs, which in turn add a huge cost to the healthcare system in the United States. I argue that even if the data are true and accurate, these are not valid arguments for recommending routine circumcision in newborn babies.

Keywords: circumcision, newborn, males, American academy ofPediatrics, AAP, STD, Medicaid, religion

It troubles me that while most ofthe western world views female circumcision as a barbaric and intolerableritual, the United States of America is still pushing for male circumcision on unwilling newborn males.
Following a recent study on circumcision, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has changed its policy on circumcision (1). After 1999, the agency had an on-the-fence stance, explaining that there were some benefits and some risks to circumcisions. Now, the claim is that the benefits of circumcision clearly outweigh the risks. The AAP has even gone as far stating that circumcision doesn't hurt sexual pleasure or performance in adulthood. Of course, the reasoning behind circumcision advocacy is loosely based on STD prevention, including the supposed protection from HIV. I am not convinced that cutting off a part of your body in order to protect from a disease which is product of a behavior you will not partake inthe next 16-17 years of your life, merits the surgery on an unwilling infant. However, the AAP is not completely without heart. Short of mandatingthis medieval procedure in every pediatric office across America, they are letting the parents have the final word (2). Aren't they generous?

I am not going to argue against the data in the paper “Male Circumcision” (3) published on AAP’s journal Pediatrics. I am even going to concede that, provided that the data is valid, and male circumcision does indeed provide great health benefits, the idea of circumcising newborn boys is not only illogical, but it actually harms the autonomy and welfare of the infant.

Circumcision of newborn boys is a surgical event. No surgery comes without risks. Even the most routine surgery will always have a certain amount of risk attached to it. Indeed, circumcision is a surgery that is usually performed in copious amounts around the world, and there are very few reported cases of circumcision which had an unexpected negative outcome (4) ,and much less a fatal one (5).There is an estimated 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths every year inthe United Stated alone (6).

What is the problem with getting rid of a perfectly healthy part of the human body in order to prevent diseases that can be contracted as soon as the boy starts having sexual intercourse? Theforeskin of the penis actually protects the penis during babyhood. It stops feces and other contaminants from introducing themselves into the urinary tract. So getting rid of it because in some years, the baby might not engage in safe sex and has a slightly higher chance of contracting an STD is a ridiculous argument that is used in order to excuse the continuance of this barbaric ritual. One could argue that female circumcision reduces the amount of sexual pleasure, therefore diminishing the chance of a woman engaging in sexual intercourse which could result in unwanted pregnancy or an STD. Just like with male circumcision, female circumcision cannot be justified with this line of reasoning.

The new justification for circumcision is closely related to the STD “argument”. This time, advocates for baby genital mutilation argue that intact men will most likely get and STD, thus increasing healthcare costs for everybody—in the BILLIONS of dollars. And, they are upset because Medicaid does not provide circumcisions for baby boys. That’s right. They are actually upset that the government does not want to pay for genital mutilation of those who benefit from the entitlement program.

If the concern is that a certain body part which is perfectly healthy, and has a real use may cause infections in the future, we can argue that we might as well just start taking out the female uterus as well. No female uterus means no uterus cancer. Imagine all the money we can save in healthcare costs! Or, following that same reasoning, we could just remove the breasts of women who no longer plan on having children. After all, you can still have sex without them and they could be the host of very aggressive breast cancer. Then again, they could not, but the point is not whether you have the right to make decisions on your own body, it is about how much it will cost to the American tax payer.

This brings me to my conclusion which is quite simple. Parents have no right to remove, mutilate, modify, sell, destroy or otherwise tamper with the healthy bodies of their children. You do not have this right if you can prove that the baby may engage in sexual activity in the future, which could result in an infection. You do not have this right even if you can prove that avoiding such infections would reduce costs in the healthcare system. The only person who can make that call is the person getting circumcised; a decision which cannot be made by an infant or toddler. “Culture” is not an argument. “Religion” is not an argument. “Tradition” is not an argument. I am embarrassed for the AAP which should know better. If you begin recommending circumcision based on possible infections which may occur due to sexual activity, or you justify it by explaining it will save us a few dollars, you are not only wrong, but immoral. Oh, and in case you haven’t heard, condoms are much more efficient to protecting from STDs than genital mutilation.

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Newborn MaleCircumcision. American Academy of Pediatrics. [Online] 8 27, 2012.[Cited: 8 27, 2012.]http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/Newborn-Male-Circumcision.aspx.
2. —. New BenefitsPoint to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up toParents, Says AAP. American Academy of Pediatrics. [Online] 8 27, 2012.[Cited: 8 27, 2012.]http://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/Pages/New-Benefits-Point-to-Greater-Benefits-of-Infant-Circumcision-But-Final-Say-is-Still-Up-to-parents-Says-AAP.aspx.
3. MaleCircumcision: Taks Force on Circumcision. American Academy ofPediatrics. 2012, Pediatrics.
4. AFP. GoogleNews. US judge awards payout for botched circumcision. [Online] 7 2011.[Cited: 8 28, 2012.]http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hWUCGBeU-LVsEGdRXbENDYZozXFg?docId=CNG.bdac60bc01523cb81732d8109017db35.7b1.
5. The HuffingtonPost. Baby Dies From Herpes After Controversial Circumcision Ritual, ReportSays. The Huffington Post. [Online] 3 6, 2012. [Cited: 8 28, 2012.]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/06/baby-dies-circumcision-ritual-herpes_n_1322420.html.
6. LOST BOYS: ANESTIMATE OF U.S. CIRCUMCISION-RELATED INFANT DEATHS. Bollinger, Dan.1, 2010, THYMOS: Journal of Boyhood Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 78-90.