I hate democracy

With every election there comes a wave of celebrities, journalists and pundits whining about low voter turnout and passive aggressively trying to shame you into voting. They're basically saying that by not voting you're supporting Hitler. And by giving up your right to representation you'll lose at life. Do you know who doesn't have the right to representation in congress of the US? The entire fucking Washington D.C. (and they're fine).  Usually it is quite clear which party given celebrity supports so it is reasonable to assume that what they really want is for you to vote on their guy - not vote in general. Thus the apparently nonpartisan talk about how 'democracy needs you' is just their way to win votes for their favorite party while maintaining appearances of neutrality. This is particularly obvious when they use a line like 'don't vote, unless you care about gay rights, abortion rights*'. In this sentence Dustin Hoffman doesn't directly tell you who to vote for - so he's not engaging in politics, he's just concerned about the issues - but he might as well have said 'don't vote, unless you're a democrat' and the meaning would be the same.
I had this in mind when I saw a group of my friends (all of them humanists and - and this is important - none of them stupid) repeating the same slogans. So I asked if they would still be badgering me to vote so much if they knew I was going to vote for the wrong party. And this is the fun part. Turns out - according to them - it doesn't matter who I vote for as long as I vote at all. Some of them even went as far as to say, they're casting an invalid vote (by drawing a dick on the ballot) because no candidate is good enough. And I should do it too because democracy needs me. Let me say it again: voting is important but it doesn't matter who you vote for.   

What a mind-boggling thing to say... Is it supposed to be some kind of election Zen?

Does a dick being drawn in a voting booth make a difference if there's no one around to give a shit?

What could possibly be the purpose of voting if not to vote the right guys in? The reply I got is that 'casting a blank/dick vote is both an act of afirmation of democracy and a protest against its current condition' and thus is not at all equivalent to just not voting.

Affirmation of democracy, really? That's the purpose of voting? But that's not even a real thing! It's make-believe! That's like saying 'let's throw some virgins into the volcano to keep the fire gods peaceful'. Ok. What if I don't want to vote but I tell democracy twice a day that she's a sexy, sexy lady, will that be enough of an affirmation to keep her happy? Or do I have to do it in public and on election day for the ritual to work?

Why are we so in love with democracy anyway? It's true that the European democracies are relatively better off than for example authoritarian African countries. But the same was true even before the European countries became democratic. Maybe democracy is not the reason, maybe it's just a byproduct of progress? Would it be such a disaster if a democratic country like UK adopted a constitutional monarchy instead?
Think about these examples of democracy at work:

• EU citizens do not always agree with their overlords in Brussels on important matters - like union's constitution. This is why the EU introduced a policy to either repeat a referendum in each member state until they get the correct answer or to forego the referendum entirely if the citizens can't be trusted to get it right at all
• everywhere (e.g. presidential primaries  in the US): among a dozen candidates there's usually the sane one, the boring one,  the fanatic, the sleazy one, etc Who's going to win the election? The one with most money for ads, of course.
• Congo: used to be that the biggest tribe ruled them all. Fortunately the white men came and brought democracy. Each illiterate tribesman would make a cross on a ballot next to the picture representing their tribe so that the biggest tribe can rule -voilà- instant progress!

What am I trying to prove? That democracy is an awful, idiotic system? No. That was obvious from the outset. What I'm saying is: it's not the mere act of voting that makes democracy - well - democratic. The mindless worship of the democratic procedure is preventing us from recovering the democratic spirit.

Back to my discussion with humanists. What would be legitimate reasons to promote voting? I can think of a few:

• if you promote voting among people of similar background to yours, there's good chance they're going to vote the same as you - and you obviously believe it's the correct choice

This tactic is kinda sneaky but it makes perfect sense and I wouldn't make a fuss about it. It's just that every voting advocate everywhere says this is not why they do it. 

• high voter turnout inspires politicians to try harder

Yeah, I don't believe it either.

• substantial amount of protest votes indicates public discontent which will nudge political powers to change their ways

Maaaaybe. But isn't this what opinion polls are for?

• people who didn't want to vote but were encouraged to do so vote smarter than the rest

These people are likely to be less invested in politics which makes them less biased. On the other hand it also makes them prone to make superficial judgments (based on biased opinions of media and others). I think this one requires more research. 

• people who didn't want to vote but were encouraged to do so become better citizens as a result - they start to recycle, work in charities, stop speeding and jaywalking etc

Doesn't seem very likely plus there surely exist less convoluted ways to make people do these things. Still, it's better than nothing.

These reasons are fairly unspectacular but at least they pertain to the real world. They can (maybe) make a difference in the real world and their efficacy can be tested in the real world. Can't say the same about the 'affirmation of democracy'. What did my humanist friends (smart, well educated people) have to say to that? More of the same:

• voting is good because Saramago says so and he has a Nobel Prize (in literature)
• your vote is worthless from statistical viewpoint, voting is an act of faith - faith in democracy (I swear, I'm not making this up)

And the eternal:

• Everyone should vote, and that's that! If you don't, you have no right to complain. 

Again, no one even tried to address the issues in the physical world, opting instead to stay in the realm of abstract concepts like 'faith in democracy'. They were genuinely surprised at my objections. I have a theory as to how humanists become this way:

After you've overanalysed one too many poems, you start to lose track of what constitutes a real life causal relationship. You see, there's no cause and effect in literature. There's only symbols and metaphors floating around and you get credit for noticing as many as possible (or more). When you start approaching problems outside lit. class with the same frame of mind, you make associations like**:

                           voter turnout  => democracy => profit

where each '=>' represents a fancy word like 'affirmation', 'democracy' represents some ill-defined form of government that involves voting and 'profit' represents nothing at all. But you don't notice any holes in this logic because this is how you were programmed to reason and trying to back your claims by evidence is for nerds.

At this point I should sum up and tell you to give up voting, sit at home and do nothing because nothing you do will make a difference. Except this is not true. There IS a way to get things done in a democracy. And you don't even have to be a media tycoon, ruling party leader or a billionaire. Look at the American temperance movement. Despite being a minority they managed to get alcohol banned first in most of the states, then on federal level by an amendment to the constitution. How did they do it? They didn't just vote and wait for the democracy fairy to grant them their wishes. They didn't cast blank votes or draw genitalia on anything, as far as we know. They didn't vote for a moron they disliked the least (like most of us) just because 'voting is important'. They didn't put forth their own candidates either, if that's what your thinking. They organised. They lobbied. They gathered allies in unusual places (both among black activists and KKK). They let the politicians know their agenda. They promised every governor that if he opposes prohibition, he won't get reelected. And they delivered. All it took was 10%-20% loyal voters - because that's more than the difference between the top candidates. It's an empowering story about how a well organised minority used democracy to change the constitution and screw over the rest of America. This is how you change the world. So when you drop the ballot into the box every couple of years to clear your conscience, I'm sorry to inform you, you ain't changing but two things: Jack and shit. And Jack left town.


I hate democracy.


*If you want to write a comment about abortion - don't. Just don't. I don't give a shit about abortion, I mentioned it only as an illustration.
**SP fans might recognize this scheme as
Phase 1. voter turnout
Phase 2. ?
Phase 3. profit

I hate art

I listened to a radio show about art, modern art, their definitions and their public perceptions. It started with experts in studio ostracizing some journalist who earlier that week admitted to not understanding modern art. Then they went on to wagging their figurative finger at the general public who stubbornly appreciates the wrong kind of art. The message of the show was the following:
People wrongly assume that

•  for something to be called art, it must involve a great deal of skill or effort
• art has something to do with beauty and creating things that you would want to look at, listen to, watch, etc.

when in fact

• the purpose of art is to 'ask important questions'
• pandering to human emotions is only art if it is used to convey complex hidden 'meanings'
• art that pursues beauty, tries to be pleasing, not ugly is not art, it's kitsch

It follows that

• you have to be educated to understand art (especially the modern variety)
• if you don't, you should be ashamed of yourself
• modern art should be taught at schools 

This whole fiasco of a talk show perfectly illustrates the three things I love the most about humanists:

1. Their belief in the magical power of words

There was a famous performance in a Warsaw art gallery a couple of years ago consisting of a lady peeling potatoes. Countless discussions ensued about whether or not it was art or even 'real art'. Not once have I heard an expert saying: 'Listen guys, it's just a word. Words have meanings that we assign to them. These meanings change in time. We can call it art or kitsch or potArtoe or any other word you can think of because it won't change anything. Why don't we instead discuss whether it's great or shitty, interesting or boring and do we want more of it in our galleries? After all, if it's a worthless piece of shit it will stay this way no matter which word we choose to describe it'. This is such an obvious observation I'm a little embarrassed to write it (hence the third person). Yet somehow artists and critics manage to miss this point completely. As long as something fits the nebulous definition of 'art' (which they themselves invented), it automatically gets thrown into a box labeled 'awesome stuff that everyone should try to understand and admire and if you don't, there must be something wrong with you'.

2. Chutzpah
Guys have cojones; gotta give them that. I can understand art community's reluctance to call video games or designer clothes art. But do you know what else wouldn't qualify as art (according to the criteria mentioned earlier)? The works of Shakespeare, da Vinci and any music ever written. Stunning. To claim that  feces in a can  is more of an artwork than Sistine Chapel (because it 'asks important questions') - this is a whole new level of hubris.

Not pictured: humility.

3. Their utter inability to question dogma 

The other thing that I literally never heard anyone say is: 'Why do we care about this 'art' thing anyway? What is so great about it? In what ways exactly, watching a woman peel potatoes makes you a better (wiser?) person? I know that some of us love it, but is this enough of a reason to shove it down everyone else's throats? After all, there are people, who enjoy shooting hogs from a helicopter and I don't see it becoming the mark of a cultured person.' You can despise fishing or cooking or jogging and nobody will think less of you for it. You can even get away with hating sports or video games. We have discussions about merits of abortion, religion, even pedophilia, but questioning the value of art - it simply doesn't happen. Don't get me wrong - art certainly has entertainment value (so does hog hunting). Maybe there's even more to it than that. It's entirely possible that art

• fights dementia (like solving crosswords)
• helps develop empathy (like taking care of a pet)
• helps children develop cognitive skills (like video games)
• raises IQ scores (like solving IQ tests)
• or maybe it doesn't really help any of the above - maybe appreciation of art is CAUSED by high IQ, empathy and so on (in which case promoting art would be quite pointless)

Any of these would be a valid point in art's defense (if proven true) but none of them would justify the quasi-religious reverence the art has in society. None of them gets mentioned by humanists, anyway. Firstly - they feel no more need to base their beliefs in evidence than young-Earth creationists. Secondly - they know that using objective criteria to evaluate art would spell a disaster for modern art - for even if a trip to Louvre makes you smarter, it's highly doubtful the same applies to watching the potato-lady. Lacking in entertainment value, the only thing the modern art has going for it is snobbism and critics approval. If you take that away, only a can of feces remains.

So, what gives art (or even just the word 'art') so much power over our imaginations? It's simple. Throughout human history there were people, who made paintings, sculptures, plays, books, and other things for the rest of society to watch, look at, enjoy and admire. Some of them were so skillful, their works are still remembered thousands of years later. It is because of them that societies came to associate 'art' with greatness and universal beauty. More recently, modern 'artists' came. They didn't have the skill and the guts to compete with the giants before them, but still wanted the fame and respect that comes with the job. So they hijacked the word 'art' and gave it a new bizarre meaning that fits them even though it doesn't include the things that made art great in the first place. They hoped no one would catch up to them, but we did. God, I hate art.

Humanists - my manifesto (and a disclaimer)

When I was a kid, I hated humanities with a passion. I used to get into arguments with all the artsy types, the philosophy geeks, the Woody Allen wannabes - all the Tolstoy-quoting, jazz-listening, cardigan-wearing, coffee-drinking smug bastards in my school*. But it wasn't just about a bunch of snobby kids at school. We live in a culture where not enjoying Shakespeare makes you a social pariah but "I hate math too" is a cherished icebreaker, where quoting scientific data gets you "lies, damned lies and statistics" but quoting Latin wins the discussion, where suddenly everyone with a tv is a psychologist but it's ok to not know the freaking conservation of energy. And don't even get me started on science vs humanities depictions in Hollywood. These things used to bother me to no end. But a couple of years have passed and I thought I have forgotten my juvenile pet peeve. Maybe I have matured or maybe the society did (I think you can see, where this is going). Turns out - neither. I simply wasn't getting enough exposure to the irritant**. All it took was for me to add some old friends on facebook, start listening to radio and it all came back like a Vietnam flashback in a Chuck Norris movie.

In the next couple of entries I'm going to rant about humanities and their acolytes whom I shall - for lack of a better word - call 'humanists'***. The term 'humanities graduates' might be more familiar but it is too long and it would suggest that these people are somehow less obnoxious prior to graduation (they're not).

Disclaimer

Some of you are inevitably going to get offended because 'I'm a/an humanist/artist and I'm not like that at all'. I know. I know, that not all of you are like that. Probably not even majority of you. The problem is - the ones that are like that - they are the loudest, they get the most mainstream attention and they give you all a bad name.

*yeah, I know there's a name for all that, but this was a time when hipster wasn't a thing yet, not where I live. Lacking the clinical description of the condition we had to learn to recognize and despise them on a case by case basis.
**for the same reasons, I wasn't getting enough exposure to sunlight - Lineage II, anime and physics
***clash of notation with the British atheist movement entirely unintended