Friday, December 21, 2007

I'm So Sick of Numbers!!!!

Okay, so this is going to be a rant that I was not planning on blogging out, but I just can't keep it in. Recently I had several discussions with a good friend who happens to be a Libertarian.  Every single discussion came to a stalemate because 1) we're both smart enough to actually have reasons for what we believe and aren't easily dissuaded and 2) we're speaking COMPLETELY different languages.  Take our discussion about gentrification... Said friend wanted me to explain my complaint about the loss of diversity in my neighborhood in terms of market, in capitol.  I kept saying, "Yes, I get that landlords have the right to raise rent.  Yes, I get that things shouldn't just be an automatic privilege... but you're talking money and I'm talking about community and access and people."  There's more to someone's contribution to a neighborhood than just their rent and if someone has libertarian leanings, I don't know if I will ever be able to articulate in their language what that is 'cause what they believe often precludes counting those things in the equation.  There are so many other arguments against libertarianism (like, for example, how can you pull up your bootstraps, if you don't have any boots in the first place?) but this is neither here nor there.  In the end, I love and respect my friends.  Our political differences just means we sometimes see different problems in the world around us and don't use the same ways to solve them.  In the end, we both hate the religious right and really, what more in common do you need?

On the other hand, Pat Robertson and I will NEVER have anything in common.  This 700 Club news segment on the introduction of LGBT acceptance/understanding curriculum into West Coast schools really got my goat, for more than the obvious reasons of homophobia, blind trust in a book, lack of understanding of different people, fear of change, general ignorance, and hatred.  No, Robertson upset me because he, like my friend, buttressed his argument by valuing numbers over people.  Pat Robertson argues that the LGBT community has an unreasonable amount of cultural influence in comparison to its very small amount of the population.  Robertson states that LGBTs are only 2-3% of the US population, but clearly are unduly affecting mainstream American culture.  Legislation that asks schools to teach 5-year-olds to respect and understand their peers (regardless of if they have 2 mommies or 2 daddies or a daddy that used to be a mommy) obviously proves how entrenched this unreasonable influence is.

Okay, whatever, 2-3%* doesn't seem like much when you look at it statistically.  But when you do the math and look at the amount of people, Robertson begins to look like more of a jerk than normal, if that's even possible.

So, here go my 6th grade math skills... If the population of the United States is around 312, 000, 000 let's times that by .03.  What do you get? 

9,360,000



9,360,000 people is hell of a lot of people, regardless of race, orientation, or gender...  Hell, I personally believe we should be teaching our children respect and understanding (not toleration--I hate that condescending term) for any person that's different, even if there aren't 9, 359, 999 others.  But I guess that's cause I'm a crazy believer in social justice.  Silly me, living in a world of capital and statistics!

PS  Hey, all you right-wing nutters out there!  Why don't you stick to spouting Bible verses and leave the numbers and science to us that actually know how to use it!!!


*
which is actually a really low estimate--most sources put it at around at least 10%.... but I'm using his stats for the sake of argument.

2 comments:

Caliban said...

I think the "numbers thing" and the "libertarian thing" are two separate issues.

I don't like numbers and data and statistics because I'm libertarian, I like them because it's the only way I can understand a situation that I'm not personally familiar with, and it's usually the only way to convince other people who don't share my personal perspective.

If I have a policy recommendation, I can't just tell the mayor that it just feels good -- I have to give him reasons backed up with data.

So it's not that those numbers are designed to encompass the entire meaning of the people they represent or are associated with, but they are a good way to demonstrate the value of an idea or proposal to someone like me, who isn't intimately familiar with what's going on.

I guess the only point that I have is that "number-ism" and "libertarianism" are not necessarily related. They happen to be both found together in myself, but take for example someone whose house got bulldozed through eminent domain: they may arrive at a libertarian position through purely personal experience. They wouldn't need numbers or data to tell them anything.

elizabethjune said...

I limited my argument to "liberals" and "libertarians" since that's the two categories you and I tend to fall into... Everyone reacts emotionally. In fact, I think "logic" is often a bullshit way for us to justify innate prejudices, stereotypical beliefs, and feelings. So wasn't meaning to imply anything about conservatives, just wasn't including them in the discussion...