A Totally Kick Ass Proposal (and quiz)

Sometimes, when I am about to expound on things political, I sit down with a clear idea of what I’d like to discuss. Other times, my mind is blank, unsure of which crevice of the current social terrain to hunker down in. In either instance, however, before I start writing I do a little reading, just dodge around some of my favorite meta and meme sights, check out some other social and political punditry out there. I do this not so much to search for an idea or gather information, but almost like a brujo or shaman might meditate on the natural world around them, I seek to tap into the undercurrent of existence and see if there are any overt messages there. And often, I find that by indulging in the subconscious dialogue playing at the frays of public discourse, there is a very clear theme begging for focus.

In the midst of reading about the right asshol…Reverend Fred Phelps picketing the funerals of dead Iraqi veterans, claiming that God was punishing our queer loving nation, or about idiots applauding Republican Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher for taking the responsibility to pardon all his cronies and refuse giving testimony in an ongoing investigation into his crimes as Governor, or Bush comparing himself to Roosevelt, (F.D.,), this page, trying desperately to justify creationism as science dodged across my field of virtual vision, like some piece of bronzed straw, fired from an orbital magnetic accelerator with pinpoint accuracy at the spinal column or some allegorical camel.

Now, this is going to be rough work, but I want you to actually read through that entire ‘summary’ and see how many errors you can spot in the ‘science’ or ‘reasoning’ of the argument (think of it as Where’s Waldo for adults.) The answers to this quiz will be found here, as well as my recommendations for legal changes to your voting and breeding status based on your scores.

Now, whenever I see this much stupid, psychotic shit going on, I am always forced to check my commitment to the idea of freedom of speech (the closest thing to a socially applicable ethical absolute I will ever probably embrace.) Is there a precedent or a benefit to regulating speech? Alright, most people generally (and grudgingly) accept that certain types of ‘free speech’ aren’t allowed. The ol’ yellin’ fire in a crowded theater thing, sure, that’s a valid debate. Overt verbal threats against others, since they’re now forced to consider those threats as potentially serious, damaging slander, etc., is another example. We can argue back and forth as to whether these types of speech should be legislated even in a ‘free speech’ society, but I think we can all agree that at least a valid argument does exist for the notion that those valuing free speech can still curtail this kind of thing.

Now cases trying to ban pornography or art, these would be invalid attempts to curtail free speech since they are based on personal desires to prevent others from consensually enjoying concepts that the individual who seeking legislation, personally, doesn’t enjoy. It’s an attempt to force taste or morality onto other people against their will, and that dog don’t hunt. But in cases where speech is used directly and for the soul purpose of harming others, like lying to or about them in order to cause them physical or material damage, there is a distinct threat to those sacred notions of individual happiness and well being. Simply put, even in a free speech society, we consider these violations grounds for possible legislation because we believe in maintaining free speech for a reason, and these behaviors violate that reason.

But if we can use ‘harm to society’ as a means by which to clamp a lid over free speech, then can’t that same argument be used for people who are lying to society, who are clearly and obviously spreading misinformation which, if accepted based on public or political support, could cause people to operate to their own or society’s detriment? If Ann Coulter, that horrible, worthless bitch who should die, is literally and regularly printing false facts and figures in her column to support her fucktarded views, doesn’t that constitute a demonstrable attempt to mislead, and thereby harm, the populace? What about when the so-called Christian right attempts to subvert all data and known evidence in order to try and force children to be taught out and out fraud? Isn’t that harming people? And Phelps, don’t even get me started. Why isn’t this man dead, yet? Such a clear and flagrant abuse of his freedoms for the soul purpose of causing strife and misery is reprehensible. But is that enough of an argument for making it illegal?

I want to, I want to so bad. I want to know that the next time some asshole starts assaulting people at funerals merely to tell them god killed their loved ones because they didn’t hate fags ENOUGH, that he is promptly locked up and given some pretty severe drug therapy. I want to know that when Ann Coulter makes up facts and attributes them to credible sources, she will shortly be spending a year in jail for it and will owe that source a lot of money for slandering them. I want to know that when fringe Christian cultists sue a state university system for not swallowing their drivel as science, that the judge stands up and bitch slaps the lot of them, and that the bar suspends the license of the fucker moronic enough to take their case in the first place. But in the end, that shit ain’t right.

Because for our society to survive, for it to be shown worthy of survival, an onus falls upon us to be self governing in some respects. Simply put, we’re supposed to have the brains, collectively, to ignore these shitheels, and if we don’t, if a large enough portion of our society cannot manage to distinguish out and out lunacy from truth, then we deserve, we NEED to fall, at that point.

But there’s a lot of conflicting reports out there, these days. There exist whole conservative universities and institutions which are devoted, twenty-four/seven , to the soul purpose of making up and spreading disinformation, and that’s not even including the vast hosts of idiots just out to get ‘a story’, for profit or personal glory. Even I have to admit that, for the average family, with two parents working full time and a kid or three to raise, and suffering a serious dearth of rational or scientific training in their formative educations, sifting the facts from the bullshit can be a trying and time consuming task. So what’s the solution? Assholes are out there hurting society, but to use legal means to stop them would probably hurt it even more.

Friends, I’ve pondered this one for what must be ten years now, which is why, earlier this morning when the solution finally hit, it hit like an epiphany straight from a loving, liberal god, and best of all it uses one of the only intelligent compromises the conservative element of society ever envisioned. A ratings system! Friends we will simply label content with ratings according to its merit in order that the average citizen might gain a quick and easy guide to determining the value or objective validity of any claim, website or news piece! There would be no censorship, no self-defeating compromise of one of our social values, just a straight forward approach to making sure bullshit is labeled as bullshit.

I’m thinking a system like this, where F would stand for fictitious (articles or facts obviously not meant to be true, like pieces from The Onion,) LF for Logically Fallacious (for claims which have inherent logical flaws which render the claim unsupportable, like the creationist piece above,) CF for Completely Fraudulent (like most of the written works of Ann Coulter,) and UF for Utterly Fucktarded (like every single barely-coherent syllable spewed from the esophagus of Fred Phelps.) Obviously, there could be more, what’s important is that news and opinion pieces need to have warning ratings, we need people to be more easily alerted to harmful, dishonest information. This way we can ease, if not eliminate, the harm done to other people by assholes like Phelps or Coulter while at the same time protecting free speech. Work with me on this one, people. Let’s get a websource for information verification and exposure going.