Two dismissive responses that need to go

I propose that the two following terms be eradicated from the vocabulary, except for educational purposes:

"Butthurt"

"IT'S JUST A JOKE!

Both terms are often obnixously used to dismiss people who are complaining about something, such as a stereotype-ridden joke that is directed at a particular demographic group. For example, take a joke that mocks bad driving in Arizona or the supposed "surrender tendencies" of the French; if Arizonans or French people object, other people disruptively pop up saying "stop being so butthurt" or "it's not offensive, it's just a joke!". No...if someone finds a joke offensive, the correct course of action is to apologise; it's fine to clarify that you intended to be humorous as long as you give a sincere apology.

Evidently, "it's just a joke" is solely used to put down people who object to a particular joke but I've witnessed "butthurt" be used outside the boundaries of humour. A theoretical example of this would be someone calling my post evidence of my being butthurt over the word butthurt. Another example would be  pedestrians being told to "stop being butthurt" about cyclists hitting them. The word is used whether or not the complaint is valid.

I also argue that butthurt contains veiled offense and shaming towards people who engage in certain sex acts, which should not be shamed provided that they occur between consenting adults. Unfortunately, people who believe such acts are shameful behaviour would regard it as further justification for use of the word.

To summarise: I regard "Butthurt" and "It's just a joke!" to be rude, trolling and dismissive responses used to silence complaints, and such responses need to stop. If you consider a complaint to be unjustified, say so in a constructive manner.

Thoughts on this?

About those "Nice Guys"...

Note: this is somewhat of a follow-up to the two posts I wrote rejecting the notion of the "Friend Zone"; see here and here.

Several years ago I read that women don't like nice guys. Back then I did not understand what this meant and I wrongly assumed that much of what I'd been taught and told about being a decent person was false, especially when it came to love, dating and relationships. I was baffled as to why women would be attracted to men who would be disrespectful or outright degrading towards them when people - both men and women - had taught me that women appreciate being treated with respect and politeness. Fortunately, I had misunderstood what "Nice Guy" meant and I'm pleased to say that I have now long since learnt the difference between what constitutes a "Nice Guy" versus a good man. So what is the difference?

Nice Guys are only interested in women for sex, nothing more. They appear to go at great lengths to be nice to women and specifically to women, but their "kindness" is factitious: they often go overboard to the point where their behaviour is creepy and this usually overdone niceness is just an act to manipulate women into having sex with them. A Nice Guy believes that pretending to be nice to a woman is all that's needed to bed her; he doesn't or won't understand why any woman would refuse him. In his mind, he went to all the trouble to treat her like any living and breathing human should be treated and believes that it's only fair that she reward him with sex; she wasn't supposed to be just reciprocally kind to him.

Nice Guys usually aren't interested in committed relationships; to them, women are just sexual vending machines and once the "niceness coins" have been inserted, they expect payout. Most if not all Nice Guys see sex with their target woman as the goal and once that goal has been achieved, they disassociate themselves with her, not wanting to be any more involved beyond satisfying their own selfish needs. Love and genuine caring between two people are almost always alien concepts to Nice Guys, and for them, having a friendship with a woman is a failure because there is no sex involved.

A good man, on the other hand, is kind to women because he understands that treating women respectfully is one of their fundamental rights as human beings. His demeanour is genuine, not at all a ploy just to have sex and he does not consider a friendship with a woman to be a failure. He does not view women as sex objects, nor does he regard all other men as competitors and therefore doesn't constantly overreact with aggression and excess jealousy towards them. A good man places value in relationships and doesn't view sex as the only factor that matters during them. His authenticity does not make him immune from having a broken heart and he will still experience bitterness, but his respect for women prevents him from blaming or hating all women just because one turned him down or hurt him.

Unfortunately, there are men who misunderstand the definition of a Nice Guy and they assume that women desire being degraded and/or only respect men who use their fists. What worries me here is that this misunderstanding might lead to some of these men becoming rude jerks at best or committing violence against women at worst; even during the days when I completely misunderstood what Nice Guy meant, I never believed that deliberately mistreating women was key to being attractive to them, but not all men think as I do. I sincerely hope that no man has ever misunderstood the term in this manner and ended up overreacting as such, but my concern lingers; it's imperative that men and women fully understand what separates Nice Guys from good men.

I should note that sexual desire itself does not transform a good man into a Nice Guy. A good man will still have his own romantic and sexual interests, as nearly all men (and also women) do, but it's not the only thing that's important to him during his interactions with women and he also cares about his girlfriend's/wife's sexual needs, unlike Nice Guys, who only care about their own. There is nothing shameful about wanting to have sex, but no person should ever be exploited or deceived for another person to obtain it.

Without wanting to distract or deflect from this post's main topic, I am sure that there is a female equivalent of Nice Guys (possibly called Nice Girls?); it's also likely that Nice Guys have their equivalents among the LGBT community, but I don't know enough about these counterparts to give an informed opinion about them. If they do exist, I'm sure they receive the same cold reception that Nice Guys do.

At the end of the day, people should be kind to others, men and women alike, because it's what they should do as good humans. I hold the optimistic opinion that, regardless of gender, if someone is a genuinely nice person then their attractive qualities will be noticed and they will quickly find themselves in a relationship, but if they're only nice just to trick others into having sex with them, then their attractive traits will be clouded by that veil of deception.

On my support for President Barack Obama

For today's post I am taking a break from writing about my recent visit with family to cover something I haven't gone into a lot of detail about before: some insight into why I support Barack Obama for re-election as President of the United States. Tens of millions of people will be voting tomorrow and tens of millions more have participated in early voting: it seems fitting for me to write this today.

My support for Mr. Obama in 2012 dates back prior to his initial election in 2008. After eight years of George W. Bush in office (whom I supported in 2000 when I was nearly ten years old, but not in 2004) I was eager for a change in the White House. Before the primaries began I thought that former North Carolina Senator John Edwards would have a shot at winning that time, and I even thought that former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney wasn't that terrible despite me not supporting his party; however, Mr. Edwards crumbled in the primaries, and I disliked the infamous incident with Mr. Romney's dog Seamus.

When Mr. Obama scored early primary victories I decided to learn more about him, and before long I supported him for president; besides Mr. Edwards I did not trust, like or know much about the rest of the candidates on either side, and so Mr. Obama was my clear choice. Pleased with the prospect of a black president, tired of the wars the United States was involved in, and being disillusioned with and distrusting of the Republican Party, I thought that Mr. Obama should serve two terms.

Now that we are less than 24 hours from election day 2012, my opinions have not changed: I support Mr. Obama, and I trust the Republican Party even less than before. I will admit that there are issues on which I do disagree with Mr. Obama, but I've come to conclude that he is the preferable choice over the current Republican nominee, the aforementioned Mr. Romney.

Among the reasons for my endorsement are as follows:

1. Foreign policy
I mentioned before about being tired of the wars the United States has been involved in. I congratulate Mr. Obama for ending the war in Iraq and for winding down the war in Afghanistan, albeit I wish the latter was being wound down more rapidly. I am pleased that he has not launched a military strike against Iran, and that he thinks patience is necessary in giving diplomacy and sanctions the chance the resolve the situation, rather than resorting to recklessly bombing or invading. The United States should not get itself involved in more costly, lengthy wars - for both moral and financial reasons - and Mr. Obama looks to be keeping in line with that view.

The "reset" with Russia and the signing of New START, despite the re-election of Vladimir Putin, are still good decisions in the interests of international peace and co-operation; Mr. Romney's statement that Russia is the United States' "number-one geopolitical foe" reveals both poor judgment and him being trapped in the mindset of a long-gone era when the two nations were rivals.

I do, however, disagree with Mr. Obama's expanding of wars in other places, such as Pakistan, even with the use of drones, which seem to cut down on the amount of casualties. I am also slightly worried that he could still go ahead with military action against Iran, but both he and Vice President Joe Biden have been adamant that they do not want this scenario to ever become a reality, and there is a growing chorus of people around the world who oppose an attack on Iran, believing that it would be a disaster. Mr. Romney's "similar" position to Mr. Obama's in the final presidential debate would be more believable if not for his flip-flopping on various issues and the selection of several neo-conservative warmongers to his foreign policy advisory team.

2. Social issues
Mr. Obama has strongly defended women's rights throughout his first term. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 was the first piece of legislation he signed into law, and he considers it necessary for women to have access to contraceptives and safe abortions. He wants his daughters to grow up in a fair world for everyone, and one where they have control over their own bodies; he is not a woman, and doesn't consider it his place to restrict what women can do and achieve.

As for Mr. Romney, he has advocated protecting women's rights in the past, but over the course of the past year or more he has changed his position on the issue, although at the end of the day I do not think what his current opinion on the subject will matter. After the Republicans took control of the House and several governorships and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections they passed numerous pieces of anti-women legislation; the bills passed in the House were blocked by the Democratic-controlled Senate, but in some individual states little has been able to stop the Republicans there, with places such as Wisconsin repealing a piece of equal pay law. If Mr. Romney were to win, and the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress, I don't think it's a stretch to say that he would sign legislation aimed at curtailing the rights of women. Comments from some Republicans running for Congress, such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, do not instill any confidence that Mr. Romney would merely be a net-neutral on women's rights.

On the subject on LGBT rights, I think it's great that Mr. Obama is the first sitting president to openly support gay marriage. At best, I think that Mr. Romney would do nothing either way for gays and lesbians, but his and the Republican Party's outspoken opposition to their cause over the course of the campaign leads me to believe that he would be a net-negative for them. At some stage I will have to write a post about my opinions on marriage equality.

I support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for a variety of reasons, such as it forbidding health insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions or charging higher rates for women. There is also a clause in the bill that will come into effect allowing states to opt-out, provided they implement a better system in its place; I think that this will give states that want universal health coverage for their populations the chance to enact that type of care.

3. The economy
The recent jobs report revealed that unemployment had increased slightly to 7.9% in October, primarily due to a rise in people entering/returning to the workforce, and that the economy had added an extra 171,000 jobs. Before then another report had stated that the economy had grown by 2% in the third quarter. While 7.9% unemployment is still high, considering what Mr. Obama inherited from the previous administration the economy has done well and has been recovering gradually; the United States is in a far stronger position economically than most if not all of Europe, where a lot of countries have meager or non-existent growth, and in some cases are in recessions.

Granted, there is more work to be done to help the unemployed, but with Congress having given minimal help since the midterms the economy is in better health than it could be. As for underemployment, while it is an important issue to address I have not yet read anything to suggest that this was a significant factor in previous presidential elections, and I do not believe that Mr. Obama should be singled out for something hardly discussed in the past.

While I support the PPACA, I will admit that Mr. Obama should have focused more on the economy beyond the stimulus before the midterms. If he had done so the Democratic losses in 2010 would have been far fewer, and there would be little talk of him not being re-elected.

4. Uncompromising opposition
The Republicans have been opposed to nearly everything Mr. Obama has done, tried to do and still wants to achieve. I believe that if he loses this election, it will signal that all the opposition needs to do in the future is sabotage the current president to win next time. There would be no incentive to work with anyone from the other side if obstruction and disruption are key to victory.

5. Racism and disrespect
It is ridiculous to think that racism does not have a part in this election. A significant amount of Mr. Romney's supporters are only voting for him because they do not want a non-white person in the White House. This is not to say that all people voting for Mr. Romney or against Mr. Obama are racist. I know at least one person voting for former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson and another person who is thinking about writing someone else in: they voting against both main candidates, and I know for a fact that neither of them are racists and would be horrified to be given the label.

Still, I think that a defeat for Mr. Obama would be both a victory for racists and a demoralizing factor for minority communities, in particular among African-Americans. I would not be surprised to see an increase in discrimination against minorities by those emboldened by the defeat of a non-white president.

I wrote about the amount of disrespect and vitriol that the president has received prior to and since his election. While elections should not be about "wiping the smile off someone's face", I would be delighted to see all the people who are only against Mr. Obama because they are racist fail in their goal of making him a one-term president. Similar to point four, if he does not win then being insulting and disrespectful to the president and people with different political opinions will become the norm.

Final thoughts
Again, there are issues on which I disagree with Mr. Obama, but he has been my choice for president in this election before the last one concluded. As I have only covered some of the reasons for why I support him and have not expanded much on where I don't agree I am happy to provide further explanation upon request.

One might say to me "you can't vote in the election, so your opinion is irrelevant. Go away/keep out of it.", but as I have made fairly clear several times on my blog I used to live in the United States, and did so for over 14 years. I was there under three different presidents, and during four presidential and three midterm elections. I may not be living in the United States now, but its politics interest me and should concern everyone given the nation's influence on the rest of the world; I should also note that I wasn't able to vote in the 2008 election, which took place while I lived there.

Yes, I have been a spectator in all presidential elections that I have followed, and this one is no different. Besides talk to a few people and write this piece, I can do nothing more than wait for the result.

In the year...2112 (Part 2)

The second part to my opinions of this article about predictions people had submitted for potential advances by the year 2112. Again for attribution, note that the text highlighted in bold are the submissions themselves, which I have copied from the article. I went over ten of the predictions in my first post, and now I will be covering the remaining ten here:

11. Eighty per cent of the world will have gay marriage
I do not have any problems with this: however, some parts of the world are extremely hostile to gays and lesbians at the moment, and others are still wary of them, but that negative attitude is changing and I am sure the change will accelerate and spread.

12. California will lead the break-up of the US
I am opposed to these ideas of splitting up the United States, and think they are nothing more than jokes, or in some cases mere wishful thinking. By law, no state can declare its independence from the United States on its own accord (see the Supreme Court case Texas v. White), but even if that was not the case, I do not consider it to be in any state's interest to attempt to break up the Union. In the case of California, the only times I have seen its independence or its own splitting up be suggested are by people either with a grudge against the state or those who disagree with it politically (of which I think neither are good reasons for it to secede). I would also be very surprised if Congress ever approved a state's secession, now or in the future.

13. Space elevators will make space travel cheap and easy
I have always been unsure about space elevators: while I accept that technology does change and advance, I have wondered how such incredibly tall structures would even stand up, and get through the atmosphere...not to mention the danger of something hitting the elevator above the ground but below space, or of the elevator snapping outright from stress. I think I would prefer to travel to space on a ship.

14. Women will be routinely impregnated by artificial insemination rather than by a man
I respect and support that a woman should have control over her own reproductive rights, but I do not understand why pregnancy through artificial means would become commonplace just for the sake of itself. I can see why single women, older women, and women in relationships with other women would need to do this, but unless the world decides to enter an incredibly anti-sex period, I think most people will still choose to reproduce via sexual intercourse if they do not need any assistance with reproduction.

15. There will be museums for almost every aspect of nature, as so much of the world's natural habitat will have been destroyed
Actually, I hope that by then attitudes have changed so that everyone is doing their part to protect the environment...therefore ensuring that museums to honour the extinct wildlife and habitats do not come to be. Harming the environment does harm us in the long run, so it is in the best interests of all people to preserve nature.

16. Deserts will become tropical forests
I would support restoring forests that have been lost to expanding deserts, but I would oppose replacing the deserts altogether: places such as the Sahara, Mojave, and the Gobi all have their own ecosystems that should be preserved. By all means, recover places overrun by desertification, but still allow the deserts to remain.

17. Marriage will be replaced by an annual contract
I am a strong supporter of marriage: my parents are married, my father's parents are married, my mother's parents were married until one of them died, and I have friends whose parents are married; I have been fortunate to celebrate a couple's 50th wedding anniversary (twice!), and am looking forward to celebrating a couple's 50th anniversary this year. A couple here in the United Kingdom even recently celebrated their 86th wedding anniversary.

Marriage is about love and commitment, and I fear that replacing marriage with renewable contracts would turn it into a commodity and a convenience, rather than something genuinely treasured by both partners. I am aware that divorce can be painful, but changing marriage in this way would hurt people who do make their relationships work. While these are only predictions, this one does contradict 11. much further above: gays and lesbians want equal marriage rights, and I think that replacing/doing away with marriage would be a large step backwards for everyone.

18. Sovereign nation states will cease to exist and there will be one world government
I do not think this would be a bad thing as long as the said government is similar to the Federation government in the Star Trek universe rather than like the one in 1984. I think at the very least there will be much greater cooperation between governments in the future and much less prejudice among people overall.

19. War by the West will be fought totally by remote control
I think it would be infinitely more preferable if there were no wars fought at all, regardless of the means used to fights them. Again, I think there will be more cooperation in the world, and therefore no war.

20. Britain will have had a revolution
What can I really say about this one? Any nation could have a revolution between now at the year 2112, so I would not single any out.

----

To be honest, I do not think the future can really be predicted that accurately: forty years ago it was predicted that we would have eliminated poverty and crime, built colonies on the Moon and developed warp drive by now, but sadly, these have not yet come true. We can give rough estimates based on current and past technology and human behaviour, but nothing exact. As for me, I merely hope for a more positive future for humanity and a more peaceful world: the advanced technologies will come when they come.

That concludes Part 2 of my posts on the Twenty top predictions for life 100 years from now article. I would again like to thank the people who submitted their predictions to the magazine, and I would also like to say that I hope I did not come across as dismissive to any that I disagreed with: I appreciate that the submissions were likely all done in good-faith. 

If anyone has any comments on what I have had to say, I welcome the input. I am open to discussing my opinions, and to changing my mind.