Alvin Toffler, 1928 – 2016

No shock: In the Future eveybody dies. The reason this isn't just a tasteless observation is because a disavowal of finitude, mortality, vulnerability, error drives futurology. Never forget the essence of futurology is a death-dealing peddling of status quo amplification as accelerating progress via denial of death.Tech's "Thought Leaders" love to confuse making bets with having thoughts: Toffler was a trailblazer for our ruinous artificial imbecilence. I went from future shock to future fatigue years ago.

The Parade Passes By

I re-post variations of the following bit of grousing more or less every year on Pride Weekend. Last year it was published in the afterglow of the Supreme Court decision to mandate marriage equality in all fifty states and in the aftermath of the massacre in Charleston. And this year the devastating mass shooting in Orlando is casting its shadow over the festivities, systematic white-supremacist police brutality and terrorist violence stratifying once again any easy legibility of meaningful pride celebration for lgbtq folks of color and all queer allies and fellow-citizens in our vital cities, our fraught refuges, our diverse havens...

As regular readers of Amor Mundi know, my partner and I have been together for over fourteen years now. But we aren't gay married because we disapprove of marriage as a vestige of human trafficking and as an irrational acquiescence to damaging Hallmark card fantasies of romantic completion. And yet we both fought for marriage equality and are cheered by its successes because our exclusion from the institution damages the lives of queer folks who feel differently than we do and because that exclusion long remained an injustice enabled other worse exclusions and injustices, and also simply because it seems more forceful politically to oppose norms from which you are not already excluded and the refusal of which costs you something.

Appalled by the deathly demoralizing anti-democratizing energies of corporate-militarism as I am, I grasped nonetheless the indispensability of ending Bill Clinton's gargoyle "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and the ban of queer folks from serving openly in the military for reasons similar to those that make marriage equality victories good -- but, again, I cannot say the jingoist cadences inevitably framing the victory felt particularly enlivening to me personally here in the belly of the beast of the imperialist abroad police-state enabling at home endless War on Terror. Ending employment discrimination against queer folks seems to me a more substantial goal that will help many truly precarious people in this country while imposing a constraint on many truly pernicious people in this country -- and hence I cannot say that I am surprised to find it the assimilationist goal that still most stubbornly resists accomplishment, year after year after year. I don't like kids enough to wallow in gay adoption victories, and while I am all for Families We Choose, I wonder why the Chosen Families we celebrate must always be so drearily conventional.

But even if, as I say, I fully recognize the indispensability of demanding the availability of legibility on conventional institutional terms, lest illegibility marginalize so many of us in ways that literally ruin and end lives, I personally believe that a life more fully lived demands selves made of both prose and poetry, freedom requires both answerability before the eyes of power as well as the questionableness out of which different worlds are made (I recommend you read Fanon if that doesn't make sense to you).

Yes, all told, I am one of those grumps you hear about who think that celebrating Pride as assimilation to the institutional norms of reprosexual corporate-militarism is nothing to be Proud of. While Pride originated in the righteous impulse to defy the hurtful shame imposed on wanted queer lifeways by mean, fearful, ignorant majorities, I think there is plenty to be ashamed of in the complacency, conformism, and consumerism our new Prideful majority celebrates.

Especially now that I'm past fifty I find that I more or less want Pride to get off my lawn. It is like a crowd of vacant consumers and squalling kids hard to distinguish from a food court in a Tornado Alley suburban mall even with the interchangeable shirtless guys and sequins shorn of their magic by too much sunlight. I do know that there are plenty of older folks who draw a real measure of strength and support from Pride, and yet I do think Pride is something youthful at heart, and in a way that registers both the fabulousness and foibles that can characterize youth in dumb overgeneralized stereotypical ways I won't make many friends getting into in any depth. But the hazy ambivalent fondness I still feel for Pride, while feeling at once quite contented that Pride is no longer the thing for me, is something like the hazy ambivalent fondness I feel for my own time of youthful adventuring.

I marched with my friends in Queer Nation in the Pride Parade in Atlanta half a dozen times at least, in the early nineties, and that really felt like something. Perhaps it was because we didn't seem quite as respectable as the Pride tag insisted we should be aspiring to be, for one thing. I marched in San Francisco's Parade just once, the summer after I moved here, in 1996, and it already felt terribly belated and pro forma. I wasn't really part of any movement anymore, and that left me feeling like I was at a County Fair cruising a loud crowd for dick and funnel cakes. That's, gosh, twenty years ago now! Now I see on my tee vee that queers march behind banners designating the tech companies they work for. I must say I felt quite a lot of sympathy for the Occupride moment in 2012 -- but I heard about it on the news after the fact. There was some political alchemical spark there, some joyful noisy resistance, some futural opening onto elsewhere that felt truly queer. To connect with that kind of queer futurity, I might even drag my tired old unrepentant queer ass onto the street again one day...

Pluralism, Politics, and Belief; Or, Of Walking And Chewing Gum At The Same Time (A Twitter Essaylet)

I'm a champion of both performance art pieces and uncompromising ethical stands, but I don't think elections are good occasions for either.

Pluralists propose there are different sorts of beliefs embedded in different sorts of ends and histories. What we want from scientific beliefs is different from what we want from moral beliefs or aesthetic judgments. Ethical belief ascription is different from political, legal, or any number of forms of professional belief ascription.

James' oft-quoted pragmatic definition of truth as the "good in the way of belief" is lamentably and mis-educatingly truncated too often: Truth is that which is "good in the way of belief, and good, too, for definite, assignable reasons."From this, the pluralist and pragmatist proposes an understanding of reasonableness in the way of belief and belief-guided conduct for which reasonable belief requires not only that beliefs be warranted but the criteria of warrant be proper to the form of belief.

Far from muddying or relativizing, this seems a more demanding practice of reasonablenness than the usual facile scientisms and moralisms. To spell this out, the criteria that warrant scientific beliefs (testability, coherence, etc) in order to provide prediction and control, are very different from the criteria that warrant moral beliefs (citation, loyalty, etc) in order to provide for belonging and dignity, and it is unreasonable not only to hold scientific or moral beliefs that are unwarranted but to warrant scientific beliefs as moral ones and vice versa, or to seek from scientific belief the work of aesthetic belief, or to dismiss ethical belief from a legal vantage. It is quite as perniciously irrational to mis-apply scientific belief beyond its proper precinct as to deny science within that precinct. Similar confusions and mischief-making arise from the mis-application of moral, aesthetic, technoscientific warrants to political belief.

Politics is the ongoing reconciliation of the diversity of stakeholders who share the present and coming world and its problems. Compromise (and anticipation of resistance) inheres in all political problem-solving work and reasonable political belief ascription very much including progressive emancipatory work to solicit agreement about shared problems or build different ways of world-sharing. This receptivity and compromise is crucially different from the kind of exclusivity moral belief permits or purity aesthetic belief does. It is not to denigrate morals, ethics, aesthetics that I insist they not be mis-applied to politics but to defend and celebrate them all.

None of this is to deny an inter-implication of these domains -- humans live lives in bodies and histories with integrities -- but I absolutely do deny that these domains are reducible to one another or that any is inherently or always prior to the others. Of irrationalities one could decry, confusions of science with morals, or of morals and aesthetics with politics seem to me underappreciated. Pluralism reminds us that reasonableness is not only a cerebral affair, but much a matter of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Good Guy With Gun

The "Good Guy With A Gun" is just a techno-ruggedization of the usual paranoid aggressive American individualism of white-racist cishet masculinity.

Plutocratic Algorithms

Those who once said "let the market decide" will soon say "let the AIs decide" and they will mean the same thing by it: Let the rich decide.

Some Star Trek Suspicions

I can't be the only one who strongly suspects the Klingon Empire is a matriarchy run by scientists and social workers and that all the war stuff is a sandbox they provide mostly for dumb boys. I can't be the only one who strongly suspects Star Fleet is just a kindly meant outlet for sociopaths and a-types who simply can't get with enjoying life in a sustainable fair post-scarcity multiculture.