Monday, 10 October 2011

Reverse the polarity

I'm sick and tired of polarisation. Let me be clear here I'm not talking about magnets, the earth's core or the national grid. I fully understand that those things require polarisation, in fact it's an integral part of their function. No I'm talking about the polarisation of arguments in day to day life. Actually I'm not even talking about that, I'm talking about the assumption of polarisation. This assumption has recently been impacting a significant number of my conversations. It as led to me to a simple conclusion, everyone in the world is a fucking moron. Allow me to explain that opinion in full. I have conducted 27 years of exhaustive research into the human condition, that I like to call this being alive, from this I am unable to conclude that every single human being alive is a sparkling genius of titanic proportions, therefore the only available alternative is that you are all morons. What's that you say? There are a multitude of other options in between those two bat-shit mental assumptions? Well actually no there are not, not under the rules of debate that the entire world seems to have adopted at a meeting I must have missed.

"Item 2: All women will pretend not to find bald bearded
bloggers attractive despite it being a transparent fiction"

It first came to my attention during the London Riots, and yes I mean the London Riots this was before it became hip and other cities started joining in, when a lot of people decided to entirely give up on morality, intelligence and rationality. You see a lot of people decided that the best option was for the police to pick up machine guns and open fire into crowds of people, because heavens know the that's always proven to be the best form of crowd control available. Especially when the police are completely immune from mistakes as they are in Britain (Brazilian fare-dodgers not withstanding). I on the other hand felt a need to point out that opening fire on a crowd, even a crowd of rioters, was wrong... I could list a million reasons for why that's the case but instead I'll just ask you to go watch the Running Man, seriously go watch it I'll wait... GO. FUCKING. WATCH. IT.

I know that I keep pushing the Running Man but that's because
every time I don't Arnold Schwarzenegger drowns a puppy...
it's a long story but basically, never play poker with an Austrian. 

You done? You better be because I will cut you... Good well before you thank me for reminding you to watch an awesome film, I have a question. Why was Arnie in prison? Because he refused to follow an order to open fire on a crowd of rioters. Now if you're in favour of shooting rioters you must also be in favour of the imprisonment of Action Heroes and while that is a great plot device it does make you a baddie, if you're OK with that that's fine but you will die horribly. Anyway I've meandered somewhat away from my point here, and that point is that when I stated I was against the casual murder of crowds of people, many people asked me if I felt the rioters deserved a reward, a hug or a biscuit. Now I'm not going to use this article (using the 'a' word again... please, please take me seriously) to discuss the riots and my views on them as I still don't think enough time has passed for a rational perspective, maybe at the six-month point. Anyway the point I'm trying to make is that in the eyes of those engaged in the debate the only options available were killing all of the rioters or rewards, hugs and biscuits. I hope to fuck these people don't breed as that blinkered view will result in a lot of dead kids... like more dead kids than is desirable. You see my view was actually in the middle of these two equally retarded ideas, what's wrong, I said, with merely, I continued, kicking the ever-loving fuck out of the rioters, I concluded. I wanted rubber bullets, hose trucks and casual night-stick beatings.

My version of the middle ground is very different from others.

This polarisation reared it's ugly head again more recently when I got into a debate about fox-hunting at work. Now first of cards on the table time I'm a vegetarian... that's all I have to say on that subject, I'm not preachy about it because if there's one thing I've learnt from my carnivorous friends it's that the minute you start being preachy about what other people choose to eat you become a tedious arsehole. However my vegetarianism doesn't blind me to logic and reason, I like people but I think our numbers need to be cut and I feel the same about foxes. Foxes are lovely creatures but so are tribbles and if you get to many of either it'll cause problems. Fox hunting was a cruel and futile way of controlling fox population that has been, rightly, replaced with more humane methods. However the minute I said I was against fox hunting I was asked if I was a vegetarian, I replied with the affirmative (it doesn't do to tell fibs, even to win arguments) at which point I had to listen to a tirade of points about the need to control fox population. The assumption was made that as I was against the cruel and pointless extreme of fox hunting then I must want to let foxes eat babies, I don't just to be clear I definitely don't want that. 

Google Image Search: fox eating a baby... first result.
Conclusion foxes have great PR.

However this is the point where we get to the problem with making assumptions about this kind of thing. The chap I was arguing with then proceeded to lecture me on the need for a badger cull to stop Bovine TB. This chap had already decided that I was a liberal nut-case so my opinions against badger culling could be easily ignored. Firstly I had it explained to me that I don't know what badgers are really like. Well my home-town contains a metric fuck-ton of badgers. I know all about the vicious streak they have but I also think that the only species on the planet to ever launch a tactical nuclear strike isn't really in a position to judge. I then had it explained how a badger cull is the best way to stop the spread of Bovine TB... but it's not. You see badgers are estimated to be responsible for about 17% of cases of BTB, where as the rest of the cases are due to fields being a little to close to each other. So when you have two factors on a 17/83 split I figure you address the big number first and the government scientist who published the report on the link between badgers and BTB agrees with me.

Couldn't find a picture of a badger in a lab-coat.

This is brings me ever so circuitously to my point, when you decide anyone who disagrees with you're point of view is on the extreme of the other end you miss out on actually finding real solutions. For example it's entirely possible that instead of the entire human race being a bunch of retarded morons or a bunch of super geniuses that the real answer, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

No comments:

Post a Comment