Monday, December 25, 2017

Good luck, Ohio

Ohio's governor John Kasich has signed into law a ban on abortion performed on the basis of Down syndrome. I'm going to call back to a post I wrote last year when Mike Pence signed a similar law for Indiana:
Before I go into what's so horrible about this bill, I want to first acknowledge that it's almost certainly blatantly unconstitutional. To my knowledge, there is no legal basis for banning abortions that would otherwise be legal based on the reason a woman wants one. And Indiana's law doesn't just ban abortions performed because of fetal disability-- it also bans abortions based on the race, color, national origin, ancestry, or sex of the fetus. Abortion was deemed a fundamental right in Roe v. Wade, and fundamental rights can't be abridged based on a person's motive for exercising them. One would think. 
Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Guttmacher Institute, made a great comment about the specifications of the bill: "They basically took non-discrimination language and made it an abortion ban."  It's always fun when conservatives pretend to care about diversity and egalitarianism purely for the sake of trying to make liberals look like hypocrites. What's not fun is that this tactic is often remarkably effective, because on first blush a liberal might fully agree that women shouldn't abort based on any of those factors. After all, none of these traits are the kid's fault!  They're circumstances of birth! 
Yeah, well...there's a problem there. Because we're not talking about a kid. We're not talking about about circumstances of birth, because we're not talking about someone about someone who has been born. A fetus that is aborted will never experience discrimination, because that fetus will not experience anything. A fetus does not care why it was aborted, because a fetus doesn't care about anything. The result of abortion is the same for every fetus, regardless of why the abortion occurred. 
If we agree that a fetus is not a person (in the legal sense), then the fetus has no rights.  It doesn't matter whether it's freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, the right to privacy, or the right not to be discriminated against (which, again, social conservatives don't generally support in the first place)-- non-people do not have rights. 
If we don't agree that a fetus isn't a person, which is to say, you think they are people...then every abortion is equally murder. Reasons don't matter. We don't just ban murders that take place because of discrimination-- they're illegal regardless.  So in that respect, passing a law that forbids abortion for discriminatory reasons is implicitly acknowledging that fetuses aren't people.
And, in fact, the Ohio ACLU has called Kasich's version of the law "blatantly unconstitutional":
The ACLU of Ohio opposes this unconstitutional attack on reproductive freedom, which blatantly violates long-standing legal precedent prohibiting bans on abortion before viability.

 A woman should be able to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy in consultation with those she trusts. HB 214 inappropriately inserts politics into private medical deliberations, and would discourage open, honest communication between a woman and her doctor.

 It is not the government’s role to decide what can and cannot pass through a woman’s mind before deciding to have an abortion. This type of ban sets a dangerous precedent, and opens the door for politicians to further intrude into women’s personal health decisions.

 The ACLU of Ohio opposes discrimination in all forms, and works to ensure that people with disabilities are treated with equality and dignity. However, this purposely divisive legislation is about restricting abortion, not protecting against discrimination. Instead of wasting more tax dollars on this political crusade against reproductive health care, legislators should focus on addressing the serious concerns of those with disabilities in our communities.
The last I heard about Indiana's law was that a federal judge blocked it. Let's hope the same happens for Ohio, but you'd think that instead of spending all of the time, energy, and taxpayer funds getting an obviously unconstitutional law passed, Kasich would be bright enough to look at what happened in Indiana and just not bother. 

Thursday, September 7, 2017

Inside (outside) football

Photo credit: AP/Gene J. Puskar
The insider-outsider problem in the study of religion entails that an insider in a religious tradition has an advantage of insight, while an outsider has an advantage of objectivity.

Which is to say, the insider can tell you what it feels like to participate in the religion, what's compelling about it, while the outsider can tell you about the less attractive and even harmful features of the religion.

The most recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast shows the insider/outsider problem in the study of brain damage caused by playing football.

John Urschel, formerly of the Baltimore Ravens and current PhD student of mathematics of MIT, retired from the Ravens after learning about the prevalence of CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) in career football players. He had observed his own reduction in thinking skills following a concussion, and concluded that the risk of getting CTE, while still largely an unknown, was enough of a threat to his ability to study mathematics to justify quitting the Ravens and football in general.

So John is absolutely a football insider. The neuroscience researchers and journalist interviewed on the podcast are insiders-- they describe, at every opportunity, their passionate and long-lasting love of football. They do this to emphasize how emotionally difficult it is to criticize the NFL for failing to acknowledge the incidences of CTE, and generally to point out a real problem with how the game they love is played.

And they also do this, no doubt, to soften the anticipated antagonism or skepticism of what they have to say as outsiders-- that football as it is played today is highly likely to cause brain damage to career players and possibly amateurs as well.

(See also: How Anita Sarkeesian has had to repeatedly emphasize how much she loves video games, even while pointing out sexist elements in those games.)

I have no use for football, so could more easily adopt the role of the objective outsider on CTE in football players, but as a result, you would see me advocating for much more strident changes to rules, and stronger condemnation of the NFL for being slow to respond to legitimate criticism.

And that's why it's called the insider-outsider problem-- is the outsider really so objective, if she has no sympathy to the value that others find in the practice she's criticizing? Is the insider really so insightful, if her love of the practice blinds her to the valid criticisms that can be made?

Of course the potential ability of the insider and outsider, respectively, to influence and persuade others of their point of view is also highly dependent on their status. Some football-lovers undoubtedly would not listen to stories about brain damage caused by football if the news comes from someone who doesn't establish their football-lover cred first. On the other hand, those with apathy or even antipathy to football, for one reason or another, might suspect the insider's criticism of being incomplete or not fully representative of the actual problem it describes.

So you might conclude-- okay, then we need both insiders and outsiders. Yes, we do. But insiders and outsiders are always going to exist, so more than that, we need to listen to both insiders and outsiders. And further, we need to be careful about demanding that someone genuflect sufficiently to demonstrate their status as an insider before listening to them, or even simply accept insider status as a prerequisite on its own for accepting what they have to say.

Obvious? Yes, when I state it like that. But nobody's immune to the bias of favoring the perspectives of insiders in their own groups. Crafty politicians play shamelessly to this bias by portraying themselves as insiders of whatever group they happen to be speaking to, to great effect. Tribalism is rampant in skepticism, in movement politics, even in casual hobby groups, and it comes from the implicit assumption that insiders know what they're talking about while outsiders don't....except, of course, when the outsider is you.

So this is just a friendly reminder to consider the perspectives of outsiders (other than yourself). Common ground can be found at a deeper level than group membership.  For example, maybe you love football and I couldn't care less, but (hopefully) we both care about avoiding brain damage.

Sunday, December 11, 2016

New site, and update

As you may have noticed, I've been drawing a lot of comics lately. I've become disenchanted with the impact of straight-up writing, and decided to try my hand at combining some words with some images and see how that goes. If I may say so, it seems to be going pretty well so far-- although some attempts have been a bit rough, there does appear to be a wavering upward trajectory.

On the day of the election, I created some characters in my head to play out the sort of conversations I saw around me, or those I wanted to see around me. If you create a continuing cast of characters in a comic, and you post that comic on the web, I believe it's called a "webcomic." So I created a webcomic, apparently.

As you may also have noticed, the comics that belong to that series have vanished from this particular page. That's because they've moved to a new page called Giant If, their new home. I plan to continue drawing comics for this series as long as they occur to me, which might well be for the next four years. Check it out if you feel so inclined.

Making the new site also encouraged me to do something I've not done before, which is creating a Patreon. I started this blog in 2010 and have written for it since then without any sort of external funding from ads or anywhere else, and decided that maybe it's worth a try.*

Patreon lets you choose to let people pledge a certain amount of money per month, or a certain amount of money per thing you produce (in my case, comics).  Both have a cap, so you can for example decide to pledge $1 per comic with a cap of $10 per month, or whatever.  I think that's a pretty handy way to both a) require someone to produce something before you make any payment for it, and yet b) prevent yourself accidentally paying a larger amount than you expected if your donee suddenly starts producing at a higher rate than you'd expected.

I also put a link to my Amazon wishlist on there, because what the hell.

That does not mean that Cheap Signals is coming to an end, btw. You'll see that I haven't (yet) removed or relocated the comics I've been making that aren't part of the Giant If series. That's because I'm not sure where they really belong-- do I want to make this blog solely about writing, and that one solely about comics (of all kinds)?  I don't currently know, and advice would be welcome. But right now I plan to continue to do writing, at the very least, right here.

This blog, she is not dead. I'm still making stuff-- I can't not.

*There's also a donation button on this page, if you're interested in becoming the first person to use it.