It's not that I don't care about the state of the world; it's that I'm not your soapboxer.By Serdar Yegulalp on 2015/11/24 10:00
It's not that all the madness just outside my window -- a demagogue plutocrat running for president, knee-jerk reactionary behavior to terror, all the rest of it -- has clubbed me into silence. Whenever times get crazy, I don't tend to do a lot of outwards flame-throwing, if only because so many other people do the job far better than me, I've found. I am not best suited to being the man on the soapbox when it comes to such issues. That doesn't mean I don't care about them.
"What kind of story should I write?" How about one that's, you know, yours?By Serdar Yegulalp on 2015/11/21 10:00
One of the issues I run into most often with other people who are learning programming is how many of them have an attitude of bewilderment about the whole thing. They know that it's a useful skill, lucrative too, but when it comes to actually creating something useful with software, they haven't the faintest idea how to go about it. Their experience and their mindset just doesn't allow them to take steps on their own, to solve a problem of theirs or maybe help other people solve their problems. It's just not their baaag, maaan, and so they eventually drift away and spend their time doing something they have less difficulty wrapping their heads around. Do note that in no way do I consider this a failing; I'd rather people do something they genuinely enjoy than something they just think is what they're supposed to be doing.
It's tempting to blame someone else for your creative failure, and also wrong.By Serdar Yegulalp on 2015/11/16 10:00
Angst-istentialism within, so feel free to walk on by, Isaac Hayes-style, if this does you no favors.
Let's not be the things we claim to hate.By Serdar Yegulalp on 2015/11/14 22:00
Heavy thoughts tonight, but I have no choice but to think them.
It's been said in multiple circles now that ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh's tactic is to incite hatred against itself and by proxy others easily confused with it -- in short, to polarize.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was of the belief that loving one's enemies, not giving into the temptation to despise them, would have a transformative effect on both the enemy and the victim.
This is hard stuff to swallow today, when the enemy in question is hellbent on not letting us treat them like fellow human beings. If they want the gun and the bomb and the swift knife in the dark, why not give it to them? Will it be any comfort to those who stood over those gunned down if we say "No, let's find another way", instead of rooting out their nests, severing their supply lines, crippling where we can their capacity to make terror?
I know full well many of those grieving for the dead want nothing more than to see all those who had complicity for the attacks in Paris found and brought to justice -- or, failing that, killed in their tracks. I am not about to tell them the way of love is better, because they would rather keep their love for the people that matter and not waste it trying to appeal to those who want nothing but martyrdom.
But there is one sense in which King is absolutely correct: hating someone dehumanizes you as much as it does the one hated. It is not that it is wrong to grieve for those we have lost, or to want justice for their deaths. It's that we shouldn't also take refuge in the need to see everyone else as a potential enemy, and therefore a potential source for a feeling of justice by way of punishing them.
If an individual person chooses to reach out to someone believed to be incorrigible with a message of love, I won't stand in their way. I wish them the best of luck; the hopeless idealist in me thinks the world needs more such hopeless idealists. But let us start by not becoming our own worst enemies.
Science fiction, rebooted.