Morons of the Internet: Free Thought Blogs (10/03/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words from some of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have quite possible one of the most stupid protests I've ever come across. Of all the things you could ever do, what is the point in something as flawed and pathetic as this?
_________________________________________________________________
http://freethoughtblogs.com/heinous/2015/02/24/excluding-white-male-authors/
_________________________________________________________________

Oh god, how could you possibly read a book by a man; just what is the world coming to? The very thought of reading many books my many, many vile human males just makes me feel physically sick. Damn that patriarchy for teaching men how to write. It's times like these I just hate the thought of all those illiterate women who thanks to the patriarchy and people like you never get to write novels. In reality, which seems to allude this person, I find myself wondering whether any of this actually matters. Writing is a work of art, and so therefore completely subjective. If gender effects your perception of the novels then that's your narrow minded problem and not the fault of society. I would put good money on the fact that you picked up the majority of books by male authors because you liked the look of them, not because of what gender its author was.

Furthermore your 'solution' is preaching inequality within itself, so how it's supposed to cure the problem has yet to be answered. I just don't understand why you would actively handicap your mind like this just for the sake of petty equality, and only that on a personal scale. It's like you're saying that because you've read more books by a male author that their opinion is somehow now worthless, just because they have a majority of the say. Surely if equality is what you seek then you should give them an equal chance as well, and not just ignore them. Making a radical decision out of a trivial issue like this is just stupid, and everyone should have the ability to share their equally valid art, and not be instantly discounted because of their gender.

Well I guess it's no surprise that I can't agree with her views when I'm part of the loutish 'anti-victimhood brigade'. I guess I thought that equality had already happened, and that's all because of my intrinsic biases. Surely this author is right in suggesting that my foolish behaviour must be atoned for with active correction, which sounds like something from a George Orwell novel; but then I shouldn't mention that pathetic and worthless male author. My solution would be the 'why the fuck should I care?' technique, which will allow me to buy whichever book I choose because I want to do some reading, and not because I care about stupid things like what gender the author is. I just don't see why I should buy books that I wouldn't otherwise enjoy because they're written by a woman. Surely if I did that I would be creating the very problem I was trying to eradicate in the first place, and that would continue in a vicious circle. Oh, but of course it's only women that are being victimised. There goes my intrinsic biases again.

I'm not sure if this writer is getting other people to try and do it, and judging by the comments it's having that effect, but why should I discriminate against various authors because of only personal experiences? Now if you're seriously going to bang on about me for being inherently biased, then you need to have a long look in the mirror as your piece defines bias in every sense. Why can't you just accept that in the areas you were interested in male authors were superior, or at least were more interesting for your eyes. That has absolutely nothing to do with intrinsic biases or race and gender, and I only see this issue arising because you're making it, and not because it's a pressing concern to society.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and so I'm amazed at how she doesn't realise that this 'active correction' is just making more inequality, except only in the male direction. When that concept is reversed it's a plight on humanity, which makes this whole article pretty hypocritical; male authors have to make a living too. The concept of bias will always exist, no matter how much correcting you try, so what's the point in trying to eradicate it? It's not as if it's done any harm to your reading, you've just ended up buying more books by male authors, which really isn't the end of the world. You even admit that you bought books from a specialised area, so that should explain the inequality of your reading. That would be like me boycotting female authors because I'm a huge fan of romantic fiction, and I only have a sample size of one to base my radical theory on. Even after all that I'm still going to have that bias you keep banging on about, so my thoughtful action doesn't change anything.

It seems remarkable that you can then preach egalitarianism when you have not given the separate books an equal chance. For that to happen you would have to draw one out at random from a hat to remove any of those implicit biases, and only then could you comment on your thoughtful, if irrational response. You just end up sounding like a power hungry dictator that commands over the world's supply of books. I know what I'm doing is hypocritical "but that's what happened anyway." That would be like Hitler saying "I didn't mean to murder all those Jews, but that's what happened anyway, regardless of intent." You can't justify a whole argument by saying that. But maybe I'm being too harsh; at least for once someone has actually thought of a solution to a problem. Admittedly it's a problem that's simply trivial, but if she wants to handicap her own life then she can go right ahead. But please don't moan at people like me when they inevitably call you out on your pathetic argument.

I hate to repeat myself, but you're really not correcting biases. Reading from exclusively female authors is about as biased as you can possibly get, and if anything is actually more biased than your original predicament. As I've already said, you're just making the problem a whole lot worse. I just don't understand how you can fail to acknowledge that in the area you were interested in male authors were predominant. Logic would surely dictate that if you want to find more female authors then it's you who needs to adapt your interests, and so therefore these biases really don't matter. If only there was a saying I could use about not judging a book by its cover.

And we conclude with the most scientific use of statistics I've ever seen. This experiment is so reliable that I can't instantly see obvious and gaping flaws within the whole thing. A sample size of one is perfectly acceptable when backing up a theory with statistics, as obviously you're personal experiences are instantly reflected on everyone's reading tastes, and is in no way an anomaly. I just love how you put this in to try and defend your point. You recorded 1063 books for the sake of the most unreliable experiment I've ever seen. Surely you must have something better to do than tallying up all your books, which isn't at all an invalid method of data collection. I think biased is the term most scientists would use; and unlike yourself they know when to apply that word.

It just annoys me that feminism has got to this stage. It used to be about important things in society, and on a global scale it still is. But now we get some writer who thinks she's being victimised because of her personal book collection. I'm sorry if I can't relate to the situation, but in my eyes I couldn't give a single shit who wrote the book, I only care about the content. It's a work of art, and so the most important thing should always be the message and not anything to do with equality. Just please stop being so childishly stubborn and enjoy literature for what it is.