Seeing my Privates

"Our technology has exceeded our humanity"

-Albert Einstein

My Friends,
   A friend of mine posted this link last night about a currently unavailable app called Girls Around Me. The writer of the blog/review recounts telling a group of friends about an app which allowed someone to find people with public facebook profiles in a certain geographic radius.  These didn't have to be people on a friend's list, but anyone who had logged onto facebook from their iphone, basically allowing the user to see facebook users nearby and view their profiles, though it could be set to locate boys, girls or both.  Predictably, the boys of the group thought it was funny while the girl's thought it was invasive and upsetting.  The rationale for the female apprehension was that a guy could find a cute girl at a bar, look at her pics to see what kind of drinks she likes, what some of her interests are and where she is at a certain moment so that he could go intercept her and come off as Mr. Right, either through slick conversation of liberally applied "frosty margaritas."
   By the article's end, the writer describes how his friends, males included, were all uneasy about the invasiveness of the app, and describes how its main function in his eyes was to hammer home the importance of being aware of your facebook privacy settings, and online privacy in general.  I don't take issue with this conclusion, and the company which created the app maintains that people could always have adjusted their privacy settings.  Rather what I take issue with is the knee-jerk reaction to this technology because it is misdirected, as I find most indignation typically is.
   The girls in the article took issue with Apple and Facebook for allowing this app to be created and sold, and of course with the potential rapists and stalkers who would undoubtedly try and use it to rape and stalk more efficiently.  Because if there is anything the ambitious rape/stalker values it is maximizing his preying to prowling ratio.

Possible Tagline: "Girls Around Me: The industry leader in streamlining raping and stalking operations"

...or perhaps...

"Girls Around Me: Rape Solutions for the Modern Predator"

   In the case of the FB/Apple rage and the uproar which ultimately caused the app to be shut down: is this really the answer?  App censorship?  Making something illegal or removing it entirely is not the proper way to deal with a problem but that logic seems to dominate any thinking about problem resolution.  If we ban enough potentially offensive (or actually offensive) things, will the ne'er-do-wells among us, constantly biding their time waiting to pounce, finally get the message that we don't appreciate the threat they pose and leave us alone?  Of course not.  When has a law or a ban or a removal of something ever stopped or curtailed undesired behaviours and interests?  But clamoring for new rules is a lot easier than taking time to think critically and address causes I suppose.
   With regard to the so-called "stalkers and rapists" whom this app served as an enabler for, I have to ask: has this app really been that much of a boon?, and do they even really exist?  Now I don't mean to downplay the problem of rape and obsessive behaviours like stalking, and I am not claiming anything like the stats being overblown because I don't know the stats and frankly even one incident is too many.  But still, do these people really exist?  I don't question the possibility that given a certain sequence of events, moods, and opportunities that rapes can happen.  But when people talk about rapists and other criminals like them, their rhetoric always seems to allude to a shadowy group which is constantly watchful in alleys outside of clubs, waiting for an unescorted girl in a miniskirt and wobbly with booze to swoop in on.

First rule of 'Rape Club'...

Certainly to such a group as this, Girls Around Me would be a boon, revolutionizing the rape game by allowing the predator a menu of sorts, but I question the very existence of this secretive cabal of rapists and stalkers.
   Now remember who is saying this: I am someone who has no problem believing that there are certain powers which pull strings behind the curtains and who are the true controllers of the world we think our "democratically elected" leaders run, however I can't co-sign the prospect that there are rapists everywhere among us**, and certainly I can't co-sign the idea that they are legion.
   Well, one exception comes to mind...
   When I hear criticisms of this technology, I see fear that is not unfounded but misdirected.  People are so worried about the implications of technology that they will still use anyway because it is actually amazing and has the potential to be incredibly useful if everyone completely opened their privacy settings.  But we can't because we have reason to fear being completely open with strangers: why?
   Again we come back to "why," my oft-asked favourite question.  Why should we be afraid of other people?  Like I said, the fear, though overblown, is not unfounded.  Why might someone use this or any technology to hurt us?
   To those like me who fear institutions more than their fellow man: why would you be afraid of an organization or government using this or any social media to spy on you or data-mine you?  Why would they want to data-mine and spy in the first place?
   In my head it is clear that these potential misappropriations of technology in no way reflect poorly on the technology or its creator, but rather on the system which puts us at odds with each other to the point where we would use potentially beneficial creations as weapons.  If you think about it, all technologies are neutral, yet they get blamed for misuse and the violence which is integral to the system which applies them.
   Think I'm full of shit?  Mebbe, but let me quickly demonstrate how any technology can be hijacked for violent purposes:

1. Toothbrush

   What's more wholesome and beneficial than a toothbrush?  It conjures up images of young children learning hygiene and taking charge of their dental health.  But to some, this revolutionary technology has far more sinister applications:

"Late night I hear toothbrushes scrapin' on the floor/

Niggaz gettin' they shanks just in case the war/

pop off!.."

-Snoop Dogg Lion, Murder Was The Case

2. Pencil

   Arguably one of the greatest pieces of technology ever created.  Allows us to solidify ideas on paper and gives us something to chew on when stumped.  But it can be repurposed...

"...My little homey Baby-Boo took a pencil in his neck/

And he probly won't make it to see 22/

I put that on my mama, 'Imma ride for you Baby-Boo'..."

-Snoop Lion, Murder Was The Case

3. Fire

   I don't think anyone needs me to post a picture of fire nor tell of how it allowed us to cook food, smelt metal and power early machines.  Without saying it is more useful than pencils have been, it has certainly been more fundamental to our early development.  However, it too has been repurposed for negative uses:

I suppose we should ban fire now?

4. Rocketry

It can be either this:

Saturn V Rocket, the kind that sent to the astronauts to the moon

Or this:

Trident II Nuclear Missile

Any questions?

***

   I hope these examples make it clear that technology is in and of itself benign.  Certainly some might be inherently dangerous, such as nuclear technologies, but they are not by themselves malicious or violent.  It takes an aberrant and poorly socialized human being (or human species) to look at something and decide, hey instead of using that for the good of all I think I'll use it to kill...

...or rape, as the case may be.

Stay Thirsty,

-Andre Guantanamo

**In a certain manner of speaking, I think there actually are rapists everywhere among us. Perhaps more than even the most paranoid father of virginal young daughters might think.  For I think most anyone can rape or commit a violent act given the right (wrong) circumstances.  It is folly when people, in shock from stories of a horrible crime, ask, "How could someone do that to another human being?," or even worse when they maintain, "I could never do something like that."  

   Well, no one is born evil (evil doesn't even exist) or born a rapist, much less conceived that way.  So the factors which contributed to their aberrant behaviour must be environmental, which means that anyone can be susceptible to becoming a predator or violent if certain conditions are met.  When we are told as kids that we "can be anything," there is actually a lot more truth there than we realize.

   

Anonymity & Identity

My Friends,

   Been doing a lot of facebook debating as of late.  I mean its one thing to write a blog and hope someone reads it, but if you comment on someone's post I find it is more engaging; people are more willing to discuss things that they brought up in the first place by posting them.  I would like to think it is always a mutually respectful discussion, but sometimes things are misunderstood, or points aren't made or someone gets frustrated, or someone makes a joke without putting LOL at the end and things devolve rather quickly.  This is an unfortunate limitation of text-based discussions.  

   Now, between the ongoing discussion I have been having with a friend of mine for over 3 weeks (it started when I implied stated outright that Obama and all other president's were ineffectual), and the more recent thread I started on the FB group "Veterans Against Occupy Wall Street," (I tried asking them why they were so against OWS and they accused me of trolling and then deleted the thread) I have spent quite a bit of time as of late elucidating on the ills of society as I see them.  What I didn't take into account initially was that these comments posted on facebook would be visible to my friends.  People started making references to these discussions (positive and negative) and just today my friend posted this...

...on my wall, along with some choice words about how people viewed me.  Insofar as I let myself get caught up in arguments, he is right.  Arguments, even in person are about being right => winning.  However I maintain that there is still merit to discussions, or mutually respectful discourse.  And the great thing about facebook and other social media is that your rationalism or stupidity is there for everyone to see.  It forces you to choose your words a little more carefully because you never know who might be reading their news-feed and see that you were trolling some memorial page for a kid who died from leukemia.

If you troll this kid's memorial page you are scum!! ... never mind why I'm laughing

   I remember one time someone posted a link to a group for sexual abuse survivors.  I think it was called "Sexual Abuse Survivors."  I saw this thread started by this middle-aged overweight female sexual abuse survivor and saw her attention-whoring about how she was a sexual-abuse survivor.  I made it clear in no uncertain terms that by posting all this about herself on an open forum she was making a great sacrificial lolcow out of herself, and that some troll could easily come and milk her for her delicious lulz.  

Lulz: Where's Your Mustache?

My warning was interpreted as a troll and it became a bad scene real quick.  I aborted and when I returned to my home-page I saw that the news feed showed like five different posts about how I posted on the sexual abuse survivors group. 

   Bricks were shat.  I didn't want people to think I was a sexual abuse survivor looking for support, but I especially didn't want them thinking I was trolling the group.  And that's probably how it would have looked too; after all I didn't have to go there and point out their attention-whoring ways.  In fact, my advice was unsolicited and so I kind of looked like a jerk.  This incident made me very cognizant about which arguments were worth getting into on facebook, or at least made me realize that I could change the settings which notified people about where I was posting.  In that regard it helped me to see that if someone is sufficiently pathetic, you can always be in the wrong if you get caught pointing out how pathetic they are acting.  So don't get caught.

   Then, at some point in time, I discovered 4chan.  Its simply a bunch of different image boards, the most popular one being the /b/ or "random" board which has no rules about posting except that you can't post illegal things (child porn, how to get child porn, etc...) or else you get banned.  The great thing about 4chan is that posting is done primarily anonymously (although so-called "namefags" can elect to fill out the name field) so the rules you might adhere to on facebook go out the window.  No sexual abuse survivor or leukemia baby is safe.  No pun intended.

   In spite of what you may be thinking, this is actually a good thing.  Not the leukemia trolling specifically but the consequence-free anonymity which enables it.  Sure you can see the ugly side of people but barriers are also torn down.  I guarantee I have been more honest on 4chan on average than I  am in daily life because I know it will never be pinned on me.  The bullshit goes out the window and you see that people, although they have a definite sadistic streak for those who have it coming, are really deeply feeling and fucking hilarious when they don't have to worry about people poking fun at them personally.  Sure someone may tell you to GTFO or call you a fag, but they're not calling you a fag, they're calling anonymous a fag, so they are calling themselves a fag(s).

   Now one April fool's day a few years back, 4chan's administrator added a new field to the the established submission field.  It was called "Facebook Connect" and it had a little box to check that would post your 4chan submission (pic & comment) on facebook.  The lulziest part was that the box was checked by default, so if people didn't notice it was there, then whatever invective, vitriol, faggotry, goatse, heart-warming or noble thing they were posting on 4chan, got posted to their facebook wall.  

   Shit was hilarious.  All of a sudden threads popped up with people submitting screen-caps of their FB profiles with the offensive post displayed, talking about how all of their friends now knew what a racist, sexist, Islamophobe they were and how their lives were ruined.  Thankfully, the admin took it down but it hammered home the point about how your anonymous life and your internets persona but be kept separate and distinct.

   Now you might think, "Good, it taught those guys a lesson.  There shouldn't be anonymity.  Then people will just behave poorly with impunity."  I think you would be wrong in this line of thinking; anonymity is the one way we can get away from the pressures of maintaining an internet persona.  You don't have to post a picture of yourself flexing your muscles, or partying with friends or dressed up nice with the right lighting because no one cares, no one is judging.  Its actually kind of a relief.  

   But its not one or the other: Just as anonymity allows a certain freedom of expression, the accountability which comes with a posting on FB or Twitter is also important because it teaches people what is acceptable in the context of internetting.  For example, anonymity may allow you to express creativity and vulnerability, but it won't teach you to rebut a differing opinion with anything more than "OP is a fag!," or "GTFO faggot!"  Likewise, you may learn what is socially acceptable on social networking sites but I find they don't afford much inspiration or lulz.

  We want an identity but we want anonymity as well.  There is nothing pretentious about the former and nothing cowardly about the latter.  And since I continue to post actively as both myself and anonymous, I have to remember to keep my fb discussions civil or risk becoming a Special Olympics gold-medalist.

Stay Thirsty,

-Andre Guantanamo

   

So Many Identities...

My Friends,
   Right off the bat I gotta say that leading a double-life is hard.  You might recall in a previous post ("Identity Crisis," 21 march 2012) I discussed creating a new online identity using my actual name for the purposes of job-huntery.  The plan was not only to eschew all excesses of jackfoolery & tomassery I indulge in as my rad internet self, Andre Guantanamo, but also to go to the opposite extreme and present myself to potential employers a ruthless, power-hungry opportunist all-too-ready to sell his own grandmother into prostitution for capital gain.  But alas, this endeavour proved to be too daunting; when I finally got around to making the actual profile (under my real name) I couldn't bring myself to portray myself as the huge douche that the idea would have called for.  It is my name I would be besmirching after all...
   Then I had to add a bunch of people who were already friends with me on my original profile and they kept remarking about my "new profile" and "alter ego" on my wall.  If an employer saw this they would know something was amiss.
   Finally, I had to create a new email address for the account.  I then decided I wanted to standardize both FB accounts with gmail addresses instead of hotmail addresses cause "g" sounded slightly more professional than "hot," so I created another gmail address for "Andre Guantanamo."
   But since I mostly check my email on my phone during the day and its a pain in the ass to switch between two gmail accounts or two hotmail accounts I decided that one of my gmail accounts and one of my hotmail accounts would forward to a second hotmail account under my actual name which would allow me to rapidly check all my mail from my phone without re-entering passwords.
   As you can imagine I am rapidly losing track of which account is forwarding to which and which account I should be giving out as my "primary personal," "primary business," "secondary personal" and "secondary business."
   This whole experience has taught me that leading a double-life is not for the faint of heart.  I have heard that a prudent man should set up a completely separate identity (email, name, business card, etc...) if he wants to successfully be adulterous.  I can't see any vagina being worth the frustration of it all.
   Ironically, Ayn Rand, whom I had meant to quote extensively in my douchebag professional profile, had an interesting opinion on lies.  Her view was that lying is self-abdication; as soon as you lie you become the slave of the person you lied to.  All your efforts go toward maintaining the deception you have wrought.  I am feeling it now.  Its so tiresome having 2 lives.

   So instead I will have 1.5.  Let me explain: it occurred to me that while an employer may do a google search for my real name, they wouldn't find Andre Guantanamo, I have seen to that.  However, what they do find does not have to be a Facebook profile.  Instead, I have been crafting a Linked-In profile.  Linked-In is optimized for business anyhow and its different enough from Facebook that it doesn't constitute a double existence (its weird when FB suggests that you add your other profile as a friend because of all the friends you have in common).
   One sticking point is Twitter.  Andre Guantanamo does have a twitter account (@dreguan ... follow me and I will show you truth you won't be able to unsee) but my real self should also have a twitter account linked to my Linked-In account.  Due to twitter being much less encompassing of all aspects of a user's life, I think this is a dual existence I can endure.
   And so ends the tale of what was to be the ultimate FB troll account.  I will close it in the next few days and if Facebook's separation anxiety regarding closing accounts is as bad as I have heard (basically, you can never leave) I may have something else to write about in the next few days.
Stay Thirsty,
-Andre Guantanamo
 
   

"I Hate the Word"

 "Peace?  PEACE!?  I hate the word.  As I hate hell...all Montagues...and thee!

-Tybalt

My Friends,
   Last night I had a round-table discussion with my woman and her parents about a great many topics.  At one point we talked about naughty language and my use of it and acceptance of its use by others on my facebook account.  Particularly, my woman's mother, Bev, was concerned that people who knew me only superficially would formulate a negative opinion of me based on my use of profanity, and worse that they would judge her and her daughter negatively for associating with me.

 She had a problem with this image I reposted a week back and its unapologetic use of the C-word.

Unfortunately she missed the Star Wars joke which may have ameliorated her disgust.

This didn't bother me too much, as I explained that if this hypothetical person got to know me they would probably like me, and if they wanted to judge me for my good-natured use of profanity then they probably weren't the type I wanted to associate with anyhow.
   Now I don't want to get into another rant about how people miss the point or message when they focus too much on the words used to convey it, as I had such a rant very recently in my post, "Don't Judge a Book by RAPE BITCHES KILL PEOPLE" (2 February 2012).  Instead, I want to discuss how this conversation turned into a discussion about words which simply should not be used.  In addition to cunt, some other candidates for banishment were fuck, retard, faggot, and nigger.
  For the record I am very much against any kind of censorship.  Many of my opinions on censorship as it pertains to language specifically were inspired by Orwell's 1984, and the Ingsoc government's implementation of Newspeak.  There is a great line in Orwell's essay on Newspeak which was included as an appendix to the edition I read, which states, "The goal of Newspeak was to limit thought insofar as thoughts depended on the words used to formulate them" (paraphrase).  By corollary I believe the opposite is also true; more words will lead to a greater ability to express more subtle and nuanced ideas.  For this reason we should not deride newly-created words and slang as bastardizations of once-pristine languages, but rather celebrate them as new evolutions of the language to express new ideas.

 "Crunk;" for when "crazy" and "drunk" simply aren't expressive enough

    Similarly, the re-appropriation of words which have fallen into relative disuse must also be tolerated because they often express things in such a succinct way that to use other (perhaps less offensive words) would simply not get your point across.  A classic example would be the widespread use of the word gay to describe much more than homosexuality.  Still, the word gay is relatively inoffensive and can be used with impunity.  On the other hand, faggot and its derivatives are much harder to defend.  But really its such a perfect pejorative in the same way that gay is except that its more emphatic.  No other word really cuts the mustard when you want to describe the faggotry of bigots, furries, scientologists, newfags, etc.
   I could go on and on with examples of why we need certain words but that would be tiresome.  The main idea is that we need every word because each expresses something, but in a slightly different way than its closest synonyms.  Bill Maher and Seth McFarlane talk about this on this clip from Real Time.  At 3:39 Bill basically states my exact opinion on the matter, but much more eloquently so you should check it out.  In closing, I will say that words don't have the power to oppress you any more than you let them.
Stay Thristy,
-Andre Guantanamo

I Less Than Three Gin

My Friends,
   Last night I headed up to my older brother Alex's place in Orangeville for my first visit since returning home.  It was to be a relatively quiet evening, more of a double-date night with our respective girlfriends, but his girlfriend Krystal had gone and sprung for a bus ticket to bring my younger brother Adam home from Montreal, and with the three of us reunited the chances of the evening being quiet diminished.  While waiting for Alex to get home from work, Adam and I decided that it had been entirely too long since we had had martinis.  Furthermore, in spite of being a prodigious, young alcoholic due to university life, Adam had never tried Tanqueray Gin...

My personal favourite brand

...or even a Gin Martini.  These were two oversights I -nay, "we" had to rectify.  We stepped out to procure the required spirit.  Like a good enabler, Alex already had vermouth and olives on hand.
   We returned from our foray, crushed some take-out Chinese and set about finishing the 40oz we had bought.  It had been a good year since I'd had a martini but I found my skill in making them hadn't diminished.  That is to say we got smokin' loaded.  Well, maybe not that bad, but I did at one point strip off my shirt and wrestle the dog.

Pictured here when she was a lot easier to wrestle into submission

At some point after I gained new tooth & claw marks all over my body, the girls decided that they weren't tryin' to have this nonsense and went to bed.  We moved boldly forward committed to our cause.  All of us being together we finally took the time to try out the nargile/hookah which my father and I had picked up in Istanbul.  It was a good smoke and as we sat in the frigid garage shooting the shit I reminisced fondly about Turkey and all the time I had spent in opium dens hookah lounges.  

   At some point between the smoking and going to bed I got onto facebook and noticed this picture I had recently been tagged in:

My sixth grade class photo (I'm in the back wearing a dark vest and sweater and a shell necklace with a shark's tooth on it because that was cool back then apparently).  Seeing this photo had taken me back when I was sober but in the sloppy state I was now in I got a little click-happy and began adding all of the former classmates who had been tagged in the picture and who were (through some egregious oversight) not currently on my friends list.

   Upon awakening this morning I had an inkling that I might have perpetrated this irresponsible facebookery but it was all a blur.  However, when I later checked my email my suspicions were confirmed by two notifications for accepted friend requests.  So thanks Grant & Ashlee; apparently you two saw nothing off-putting about an elementary-school classmate drunkenly reaching out to you after midnight.  And really, that's how it should be.

   Overall, a good night.  Didn't finish the bottle but caught up with my brothers, had some good laughs and made some new(old) friends.  

Stay Thirsty,

-Andre Guantanamo 

   

What We're Taught vs. What We Learn

My Friends,
   In the last few days I have been involved in a friendly Facebook debate based on some comments I made regarding the recent death of Muammar Qaddafi.  In defending my position rather than explaining it, as I should have, I went off on a bit of a tangent as I am wont to do.  This tangent was useful in the sense that it gave me some new ideas about things I already believe.  Luckily for the other parties to the debate, I had the restraint to not flood the thread with every thought in my head.  However, I will exercise no such restraint here.
  Actually, all I really want to express is a truism that most everyone probably realizes to some extent or another in their lives even if they have never vocalized it: The people we are taught to be as children and the people we learn to be as adults are vastly different.  Think about it like this; as kids we are taught to share, to be charitable, to love thy neighbour, etc...  For lack of a better word I will call it "altruism."  Essentially, we learn nobility, duty and putting the needs of others before ourselves.  I learned these things in a Catholic school so everything good related back to the Christian God, but I'm sure all primary schools of every religion or none espouse the same basic ideas of good citizenship.  Furthermore, this conditioning (a word I use with no negative connotation) is compounded by a set of laws which at their most basic, serve to reinforce ideas of altruism and duty.
  However, we are faced with a contradiction in that to actually survive in this world, we must abandon to some extent the principles which have been impressed upon us.  I am talking about the pursuit money of course. How much is enough?  I dont know but I do know that you will have a hard time getting that much if you are altruistic and charitable.  From our first dollar, we are forced to compartmentalize in our heads how we should behave to be good people and how we must behave to survive.
   For a practical example, it is as simple as walking by a person asking for money on the street, one who appears destitute and hungry.  Ok, maybe you give them money and they buy booze, so you justify walking by them with that logic.  But why not just buy them a sandwich?  Because a sandwich would cost money; money which you could put toward your own survival.  Regardless of the fact that a sandwich probably doesnt cost shit for most passersby, it is still an incredibly unsound economic decision as there is no tangible return.  So in spite of what your teachers may have preached to you in grade school, common sense tells you different: instead of acting noble and compassionate, you act base because it makes good sense in the world we live in.
   I must be clear though, I am not condemning the passerby.  Quite the opposite, I am lauding his instinct for survival; it is hard to condemn someone for doing what life and his experience have taught him.  And this world teaches us not to view the suffering as fellow human beings, but as speed bumps.  That is the fundamental contradiction I wanted to express in this entry: we struggle because we have been taught compassion (and I would hazard a guess that we all want to be compassionate) but we are forced by the system we live in to be individualistic and self-serving.  
   I laugh when I hear the anecdote about John Dillinger, who, when asked why he robbed banks, responded, "Because that's where the money is."  How can you fault anyone who resorts to base means for money?  Sometimes...often in this world, money by honourable means is nowhere to be had.  In these instances we must resort to, at worst, criminal enterprise, and at best, a shitty job we hate, in order to survive.  While one is more legal than the other, both are simply base compromises of self, albeit necessary ones.
Stay Thirsty,
-Andre Guantanamo