Theological conundrum of the day

Serial killer Richard Ramirez, known as the "Night Stalker" for his murderous rampage in southern California in 1984 and 1985, died this morning of liver failure.

Ramirez was an avowed Satanist, which raises the question: if there's an afterlife, is he in hell now? If he is, isn't that heaven to him? So shouldn't he go to heaven, his hell, instead? If that happened, though, wouldn't that make heaven hell for those in heaven, for whom heaven was previously heaven and is now hell?

At times like this, it's almost comforting to imagine that we're just for the worms.

Intolerable

I may have said this before, but I'll say it again.

"Tolerance" is the idea that we accept different cultures and viewpoints. We may or may not identify or agree with such expression, but it's allowed and welcomed in society. The idea behind this, aside from general humanity, is that learning more about others makes us better people.

What it doesn't mean is that we have to be tolerant of intolerance. 

Racism, misogyny, violence and any other form of bigotry have no place in this cultural conversation. Any ideology that is steeped in the negative rather than the positive — be it white supremacy, terrorism or anything similar — does not deserve a place at the table.

If you ever find yourself criticizing "tolerant" people for their hypocrisy, it might be time to consider what it is they don't like about your views. It may be the hate they don't tolerate.

A new name for the Redskins?

Harnessing the basic instinct

In The 40-Year-Old Virgin, a teenage girl wants to try sex but her mom disapproves. The mom's stance is that she's too young and maybe they should start going back to church. Steve Carell's title character offers to take the daughter to a sex education class, where he secretly hopes to learn something himself. After an explicit lecture on sexual maneuvers, the teen decides she's too grossed out to get busy for now.

Taking the mystery out of sex is a far better deterrent against irresponsible sex than abstinence. I learned about the mechanics of sex at an early age through books and pamphlets, and it struck me as something not to take lightly. The specter of venereal disease, in particular, ensured that I'd never engage before I was responsible enough.

Michael Douglas' recent statement that HPV caused his throat cancer is another stark reminder of that. Though there's been debate over the accuracy of his admission, it is indeed a plausible scenario. So even if it turns out Douglas is simply a victim of other throat-thrashing hard living, the awareness brought by his remarks should remain in the public consciousness.

The HPV vaccine has been the catalyst of debate for a while, with conservatives objecting to its use among schoolchildren. It's not hard to see the link between this stance and the "it'll just give them ideas" opposition to sex education. As statistics show, though, abstinence education is not particularly effective — whereas sex education fosters safe sex and, interestingly enough, abstinence. Similarly, the HPV vaccine could prevent plenty of infections in the future — assuming fear-mongering forces don't stop its application.

When it comes to sex, education is always the way to go. Even if that education isn't always the sexiest of images.

The high road, less traveled

As you can tell from the two posts underneath this one, I engaged last night in what could be broadly considered trolling. Over time, I've learned to temper the urge to counter every stupid thing I read on the Internet. Similarly, I've banned a few people from engaging on this blog because their trolling capabilities outweighed their coherence. I struggled with that decision, because I don't like suppressing speech. At the same time, overwhelmingly negative energy in the form of trolling made me wonder if I shouldn't just pack up my fighting gear for good.

But at times I'm still drawn to arguing — such as if the person is otherwise amenable to reason, or if they're a high-profile jackass who deserves to be called out. Lately I've been combing political Twitter hashtags and doing just that. And yes, I'm conflicted about it, because I never like to stir up hostility — but I also don't necessarily find it civil to let falsehoods and bad comments fester untouched. To the extent that 21st-century digital technology can do so, such words spark a primal urge.

Jessica Valenti, with an astounding sense of timing for my purposes, says that's OK in her piece out today. As a feminist, she argues that if being classy means allowing misogynist rhetoric to go unpunished, then class is overrated.

At first she thought she was doing her readers a favor by ignoring mountains of illiterate and sexist hate mail. But at some point, the hate became too massive and pertinent to ignore. Some might have objected to this approach under the "don't feed the trolls" trope, but Valenti simply couldn't anymore. She decided she needed a detour from the much-touted "high road."

I've said as much before in sports terms — that while taunting a defender after a touchdown is obnoxious, its classy opposite is not stoic silence. My barometer of class is a complex instinct; I know when to hold and when to fold, so to speak. That instinct is sometimes at odds with how others define class, granted. Some people will tell you I'm an intense fireball of indignity; others will tell you I'm the quietest introvert they know, and still others will say I'm an ideal, level-headed employee. One thing I'm not is someone who tolerates abuse in the name of being classy. Sometimes "showing class" is nothing of the sort.

I like to think that if you're assured in who you are, then you're generally doing the right thing. The best you can do in an argument is trust your instinct and — this is a big one — be the better person. I suppose that's what I want most when primally drawn to the meaner strain of commentary: to steer the discussion back on the high road.

And sometimes that means not taking the high road.

This one is just ... is "odious" the right word?

Did you hear the joke about why Ben Affleck can't eat M&M's? They keep falling through the holes in his hands.

That joke doesn't work, does it? No. Because Ben Affleck isn't known for having holes in his hands. In fact, his hands are very famously hole-free. So making fun of him over the way he eats M&Ms is pretty stupid. And it goes without saying that the person telling this joke shouldn't have holes in their own hands.

That's about the best way to explain this Twitter exchange:

Of all the stereotypes you hear about liberals, it's rare to hear that they're book-stupid. Brainwashed Obamabots? Absolutely. But as far as education goes, the typical stereotype is that liberals are overly intelligent without being smart — textbook academics with no idea of how the real world works. That they're too cooped up in their ivory towers learning pretentious words and killing God with science to bother with common sense and real folks.

If anyone is associated (fairly or otherwise) with illiteracy and limited vocabulary, it's the tea party. From the easily debunked talking points to the misspelled protest signs to the dripping contempt for public education, it's not difficult to mock a tea party Republican for not knowing what "odious" means. Even if most of them do know the definition, it's still a passable premise in a broader sense. But joking that even a college-indoctrinated, intellectual liberal doesn't know the meaning of "odious" is like, well, joking about Ben Affleck eating M&Ms. With holes in your hands.

Jokes are far funnier when they reflect reality. Pressed for any clarification, the Bunny simply replied, "Nope." She holds this half-truth to be self-evident.

Is there a word for that? Oh, yeah. Odious.

Tweet of the year

So I have relatively short and telegenic hair? Nice non-insult!

And yes, I am thin-skinned. Literally. I'm finishing up a round of prescription cortisone cream and that's one of the side effects. So he's correct on both counts.

Not bad for a guy who was criticizing me for suggesting that people like him are sometimes hateful. And is bald.