So today is "National Coming Out Day" ...

As the title suggests, today is the declared National Coming Out Day for many countries throughout the world, and to no surprise, media of all forms are swarming all over the opportunity to cover the topic one way or another. Despite of (or maybe due to?) all the coverage, I have decided that there are a few thoughts about it that I think I'd like to share. Now I'd like to make one thing clear right now of the gate: I don't want this to be a discussion about politics or religion or anything like that. While I obviously have my own personal political and religious views and opinions, but I really don't want this to be polarizing in any way. You'll understand why as you read.

Firstly, I'd like say that, fundamentally, I really don't like that there is such a thing as "National Coming Out Day." To put it plainly, I just don't think it should be necessary that there should be a day so publicly recognized for the declaration of someone's sexuality.

For one thing, making a special holiday for members of the LGBT community to announce their status does not make the act itself any less difficult or stressful. We have all heard about and can imagine utterly horrible coming out experiences, and the fact that there is an official day for it only adds more pressure to those who are still "closeted".

For another, I find it very disheartening that society, as it is, virtually requires that someone who identifies as LGBT to make this very dramatic announcement. I mean, the fact of the matter is, we are all human. We are all people. If nothing else is true about the world we live in, that most definitely is. And in a very broad sense, the act of coming out and putting a label on a person's sexuality creates this visualization of "us" and "them". Sure, some of us are tall, some of them have red hair; some of us are insanely addicted to chocolate, and some of them are allergic to peanuts. But I think it's more than fair to say that virtually anyone today with any basic level of reason understands without a second thought that we are all human beings. Obviously, our history very colorfully illustrates that this was not always the case, but I don't think I'm being too unreasonable in my claim. Society as a whole has come a long way in recent history.

However, that is not to say that we still don't have a long way to go. As much as I fundamentally believe that the whole concept of "coming out" should not be a thing, I realize that it is entirely unrealistic to expect society in its current state to simply accept that. Regardless of any individual's beliefs about sexualities that other than "heterosexual", we live in a society that always assumes everyone is "straight". It seems like such a little thing--a friend joking with one of his buddies, "Dude! When you gonna get a girlfriend?" You know what I mean, too, don't you? I can say with near-certainty that we are all guilty of it--myself included! It's something we just don't think about. We all know that there are very real people throughout the world that do not identify as straight, and yet most of us make the "well I'll never have to worry about it" assumption or are afraid that we will offend someone by implying that they are anything but heterosexual.

So even though I fundamentally believe that a LGBT person has no more a need to declare their sexuality than a "straight" person does, I do understand that it is something that many LGBT need to do. For example, there are people who remain quiet about the sexuality for decades (for whatever the reason may be), and because of this, they grow up with their friends and family assuming they are straight. And it's not necessarily that these people are living a lie (although, I'm sure it can be the case sometimes); it's more that they are simply living silent. Because they are assumedly viewed as heterosexual and they are unable to express their thoughts and feelings when it comes to love or romantic interests of any kinda, it creates this pressure and need to come out--to set the record straight, as it were.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is not an easy way to live. I have thought long and hard about this decision, but the arguments that I've presented above have led me to this point right now. It may make me somewhat of a hypocrite, but I'd like to take this brief opportunity to say to you that yes, I am gay. I am not going to go into any more detail than that, and as much as I'd like to get by with just saying, "I am a man; I am a human being," I don't want to live any more just smiling silently when my friends and family make comments to me about having a girlfriend (and so on). I am discovering that it is really not living at all, and I know that is something that all of you can appreciate. Maybe it's not something you fully understand, and that is perfectly fine, in my option! But I know you would agree that living in complete silence is simply not living life to the fullest. However, going around wearing a giant rainbow flag and shouting through a megaphone "I'M GAY!" is not my idea of living, either! For instance, I would have no problem if you ended up telling someone else about this or that I am gay, but don't be surprised if you never hear me mention this ever again. It's not that I want to avoid the subject--in fact, I'd be more than willing to talk with anyone about this who wanted to have an honest conversation! It's just that it's nothing that I feel really needs to be exclaimed, as I've described throughout much of this discussion.

But I want to be completely honest, here; I don't want this conversation to be all about me. The fact is, there are millions of others in the U.S. alone that are in a similar or worse situation than myself. My heart goes out to them. It really pains me that society forces this idea of a "closet" around some human beings and likewise forces us to have this experience of "coming out" when a person's sexuality simply doesn't matter when it comes to defining a person. I know my friends well enough to know that, regardless of what my sexuality might be, it is not even close to a defining reason why we are friends! And I know the same can be said for nearly everyone in the LGBT community, too. And for those who don't have any true friends that see others for who they really are, again, my heart goes out to them!

 I am so thankful for my friends and family--I don't think I could ever thank any of you enough. I don't know what I'd do without you! I'd like to give a special shout-out to someone who has been there for me for 8 months today, my boyfriend Anthony. Things haven't always been easy or ideal, but for 8 months he's stuck through it all, and he has not only allowed me to learn so much about myself, he is constantly rebuilding my hope for the human race because he is so selflessly kind and genuine. Because people like him exist, I know that society is destined for great things. Change surely won't happen overnight, but I have faith that it will happen.

In the meantime, though, I want to throw out a final thought; I want to challenge each and every one of you reading this to help make the need for "coming out" disappear. A great place for all of society to start is to not make that closeting assumption that everyone is straight. Sure, most people do actually identify as straight. But I think you would be surprised even by how many people you know would chose to identify, at some level, as bisexual if society didn't immediately assume otherwise. This is not to say that you should assume everyone is LGBT, either; it in no way should be a double-standard. Just keep in mind that all human beings come in many shapes, sizes, and colors, and regardless what your personal, political, or religious views are, I think you would agree that it is reasonable to respect people for what they are, not assume what they are, and choose to get to know them because of who they are.

With that, I am going to wrap this whole thing up. But I'd really appreciate it if the conversation continued on from here! If you have any thoughts about anything I've discussed tonight--similar or in contrary to my own--please make a comment below! As always, I'd like to use this social media as a conduit for some meaningful discussion, and I appreciate any and all genuine contributions anyone would like to make! I realize this whole thing ended up being pretty novel-esque, but it means a lot that you stuck with it! Thank you!

Thank you, StumbleUpon

"Student gets suspended from school for the color of her hair"

Once again, whilst "doing homework," I have come across something that I feel compelled to share. I have the title of this post quoted because that was the tweet that I saw on my timeline from @HuffingtonPost. Overall, it is a very short article (the majority can be seen from the screen capture above), and I went to read the article because I had a fairly immediate (negative) emotional reaction to the headline—as the Post intended, I'm sure!

I think what was also intended was that I, as a viewer, should feel obligated to defend this girl and be amazed (in a bad way) by the seemingly senseless intolerance of Belton Middle School.

But I stopped to think about this knee-jerk reaction, and I found myself annoyed towards that way I reacted as well as towards Sargent's situation described in this article. A dress code is something that is usually quite well-defined in a school, and is something that you sign-on for when you enroll to that school. So do the Sargents have any right to be making this big publicity stunt (whether or not the media coverage was intentional could be argued)? Do I, therefore, have any right to have any negative feelings towards the school? I am inclined to think not. 

Now, for full disclosure, I did also make some assumptions while reading this article. For one, when the term "dress code" was used, I immediately imagined those white-shirt-black-skirt kinds of dress codes, and therefore, I also assumed that the school as private. In such a case, I stand by the comments above. However, after a bit of digging, I learned that Belton Middle School is indeed a public school, and the term "dress code" in this case is just referring to the general rules that the school sets for what is and is-not appropriate for the school day. With this actually being that case, I am leaning towards retracting my statement.

What do you guys think? Does the fact that a school is public or private have any effect on how whiny students/parents can being about certain situations? Or even just this situation in particular?

Oh, and if you want to see the full, original article, clicking the screen capture at the top of this post should bring you where you want to go. 

Martin Luther King Jr. would VOTE NO

So I get that the "Vote No" campaign is largely a Minnesota thing for this election. But in doing my reading for my Gender and Popular U.S. Religions class, I came across this quote written by Martin Luther King Jr. in a letter to his "Fellow Clergymen,"

"An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I it" relationship for an "I thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong."

While this was not written explicitly about orientation equality, it is still very applicable. I don't actually know what MLKJ's views were on the "gay rights" issues to which I am applying this quote, but based on this one instance, I'd like to think he'd vote no.

Facebook...ugh

So today I'm in a particularly social media-y mood. I go in and out these phases of being inspired to make my mark on the social media world of personal news and opinion. But as much as I'd like to amass some kind of online community with whom I can have conversations, I can never seem to find or make the time to maintain any kind of regular schedule. 

None-the-less, I get these moods every once and a while. And it's funny, because every time I do, I become inspired to get my blog off the ground, to maybe try my had at some YouTube vlogs of some kind, and Twitter becomes incredibly enticing for some reason. Now, the strength of those feelings always varies a bit, but there is one notion that is always seems to remain consistent—especially on these inspired days: I hate Facebook. 

In general, I think it’s pretty safe to say that just about everybody who has a Facebook hates it on some level. And on most days—despite the fact that I waste probably about an hour a day on Facebook (let’s be honest, many days are much more that that)—I am at the very least annoyed by it. But like every other member of my generation, I still upload my pictures, update my status, message people about other people, and yes, despite how much I despise my News Feed being cluttered with requests and score updates, I even play the occasional game or two. In many respects, Facebook has become so integrated into the way our virtual world works that, I feel, that everyone feels obligated to use it whether it’s because they see it literally everywhere or simply because “everyone else is doing it.” 

I was going to get into how Facebook was “better in the early days,” but you know, we’ve all heard that argument dozens of times. So I’m not even going to approach that horse. But what I will say is that Facebook seems to have turned into a magnet of negativity. I would go as far as to say that 60-90% of the posts on my News Feed at any given time are all to the tune of bitching about something. Some are political, others are work-related, and some are just straight-up complaints about how tired they are feeling at that particular moment. Now don’t get me wrong, I will be the first to admit that I have been guilty of every single one of those—and more! But putting those posts on Facebook (or any social media service, for that matter) never made me feel better, and why should I force my moments of negativity on my friends (because, after all, it is only our “friends” that we have on our Facebook, right?)? So I have recently adopted the simple, tried and true philosophy that if I don’t have anything good or beneficial to say, then I won’t say anything at all. Unfortunately, that refuses to be the case for the majority of posters on my News Feed—and I know I’m not alone! 

Ok, so how is Twitter any different? It is definitely true that Twitter can lend itself quite easily to the complaints of day-to-day life that I was just talking about. That being said, Twitter also has the ability to give you what you want out of it. Unlike Facebook, you aren’t obligated to be “friends” with people you know in real life. Instead you follow the people who post things that align with your interests. And while Twitter easily allows for meaningless posts, it—by nature—is also just as good for sharing information in a very simple and concise way. Its character limit on posts simply doesn’t allow for any bullshit. Being a man of opinion, I love discussion, debate, and the sharing of new information. While Facebook has proven to be little more than a closed circuit of the same people who aren’t contributing anything to the virtual world other than taking up space—myself included, other social networks like Twitter and YouTube and the blogosphere provide a potential medium for real sharing to take place far beyond the reach of my “friends” on Facebook. To say that I find the kind of discussion and debate on such a relatively grand scale attractive would be a bit of an understatement—especially today in this mood that I’m in. 

I have, by no means exhausted everything I could say about this topic, but I am going to wrap this up with one final thought. In fact, I'm going to flat-out make a prediction that, in about 5 or so years, Facebook will not exist in all its glory of today. I am certain it will still be around, but I feel that, already, people are leaving Facebook for other options. Overall, Facebook is still gaining members, for sure! As of just this week, Facebook has broken the 1 billion mark of monthly active users. But I guarantee this won't last forever. With the current "business agenda" that Facebook has adopted as well as all of the negative "privacy" issues that are also involved, that number will plateau (and decline) fairly soon. But we will just have to wait and see for sure!

I am curious what you think about it, though. So if you find yourself bored and looking for something to take up some of your over-abundant free time, feel free to start and/or join the discussion! After all, that is the true power of social media!

So....yeah...

Alrighty folks, I'm gonna give this whole blogging thing a shot again! This post is just a statement so that you are aware that all the posts older than this one are from a previous iteration of the Rainy Day Blog (it was on Tumblr, actually! I just couldn't get into the Tumblr format/community). But I am not one for erasing the past, so I kept those posts in the transfer. Read them if you want, just know that they will likely not be reflective of the posts to come.

Sound good? Alright! Well read if you want! Comments are especially appreciated! I will respond to anyone looking for a good debate or discussion!

Alright, sweet! Read on, write on, live on!

Surveillance v. Moral Development

The following is a discussion essay written for my Ethical Issues in Computing class at St. John’s University. Instructed by Dr. Noreen Herzfeld.

Imagine, for a moment, a city like New York decides to adopt a brand new technological infrastructure by scattering millions upon millions of minuscule microelectro-mechanical systems throughout the streets of the city limits. This so-called “smartdust” is allowed to go where the wind may blow it, where the shoes may kick it, and where the wheels may fling it all for the basic idea of collecting data and transmitting it amongst its brethren. “What is the point?” you may ask, and the point is, you will be told, for increased convenience and safety for everyone within the city! For example, the weather can be accurately tracked and relayed throughout the entire city at all times, and real-time traffic updates for every road, parking lot and ally can the broadcast 24/7. City and government officials can easily gain access to their respectively secured city and government buildings because the smartdust can authenticate who they are by the signal that their ID cards emit in their suit coats. Business-men and -women working in large office buildings can get into an elevator and be immediately taken to the floor on which their cubicle resides because the smartdust that was trudged in from outside identified the employees and informed the elevator of their likely destination. Data being sent and received from your cell phone—even conversations!—can be analyzed so that products and services relevant to your activities and discussions can be displayed on the billboard across the street. As you commute throughout the city, your location is constantly observed and remembered to not only later give you suggestions for optimized routes to work (as well as a tasty place to eat on the way) but to be scrutinized daily as the local law enforcement uses the collected data to solve ongoing cases as well as predict new crimes. Street cameras can be instructed to use the data to monitor anyone the system recognizes as suspicious. It doesn’t take long before everyone is treated as a suspect to a crime that hasn’t happened yet, and it doesn’t take the general public long to catch on, either. Suddenly, the people who work and live in the city regress to a point at which their actions are based solely on the worry of being recognized by the system as “suspicious” and the potential punishments that follow. However, the crime rate in the city plummets, and the city’s economy seems to be on the rise. Now, this is where my anecdote ends and the conversation begins; what might have started out being an innocent tool to increase convenience and safety, ultimately turned into a tool that redefined the moral behavior of the entire city. Keeping this a discussion about moral behavior and development (and not about privacy rights, etc.), the question I want this scenario to invoke is: Even though the city began to display morality, is there any real moral development going on? Is it even important that personal moral development takes place so long as there is an appearance of morality? I, for one, feel very strongly that personal moral development is an integral part of intellectual development as a whole. In fact, I argue that the use of surveillance to enforce morality stunts and even regresses the moral development of those under enforcement.

According to Kohlberg’s theory, there are six stages of moral development. The lowest stages are grouped into a “pre-conventional” category in which people make moral decisions based on selfish, individualistic concerns. The next group of stages is labeled as “conventional” in which people tend to think more of society and doing good to be accepted into it. Finally, there are the “post-conventional” stages in which societal/cultural biases and laws are replaced with concerns for rights and true principled conscience. Ideally, I believe that everyone should aspire to reach those highest levels of moral development. As with most cases of developed greatness, however, it requires effort, motivation, and patience to reach it, and because the majority of society only naturally makes it to the conventional level, it is seen by some that forms of surveillance need to be implemented in order to protect others from those who make poor moral decisions (“pre-conventional”). As innocent as these intentions may be, too much surveillance then actually takes away the societal need for an individual’s moral development and instead forces most back into the pre-conventional level in which they either act solely out of fear of punishment or desire for reward. Take, for example, the speed limit example from Emrys Westacott. By the end of the scenario, all vehicles were simply forced to remain within all speed limits. While this does indeed decrease the crime of speeding and give the appearance of moral actions, there actually isn’t a single purposeful moral action being made. Rather, everyone’s moral development digresses as their vehicle (and those restricting it) does all the moral decision-making for them.

This is significant because if all moral decisions came from an internal motivation to be moral for the sake of being moral (“…set fire to heaven and put out the fires of hell so that the lovers of God will love God only for himself and not out of hopes for heaven or fear of hell.” Rabia Basri), there would be no need for surveillance at all! Something as juvenile as shoplifting would simply not happen if the potential thieves had an internal drive to morally respect their local business. In a slightly different context, this entire concept can also be applied to the digital world of the Internet. Regardless of the animosity that the Internet can provide, if web surfers had an internal desire to participate in all that is the Internet through moral actions, characters like “the troll” would not make appearances, bloggers and writers of all kinds would take it upon themselves to post meaningful content, and an environment for massive growth of all forms of intellectual development will naturally develop. The introduction of surveillance, however, takes away the opportunity to develop the internal responsibility to do good for the sake of doing good.

Now, this does not go to say that surveillance has done nothing but harm for as long as it’s been used. It would be utterly unfair, naïve, and insensitive of me to ignore the fact that surveillance has indeed saved lives and brought some justice to the deserved. However, what should be stressed is that there is a time and a place, as they say, and there needs to be a clear, defined distinction in order to maintain an environment that can promote the growth of individual moral development—not stunt or regress it. 

Reflecting upon the argument made, I realize that it is a fairly libertarian stance on the issue. That being said, there are some utilitarian flavors mixed in as well. Libertarians say that everyone has the right to do as they please so long as they do not impede upon the ability and rights of others to do the same, and I believe that a favorable libertarian argument could be made for every scenario given throughout this essay. When it comes to utilitarians, I think that they would generally see the use of surveillance as a quicker solution for the “greater good” due to the effect of a forced moral appearance. That being said, I would argue that lack of surveillance for the promotion and encouragement of individual moral development—with aspirations for reaching post-conventional levels—is ultimately for the “greatest good” even if it isn’t the quick and easy solution. If an internal desire to make moral decisions somehow sprouted and grew within the hearts of every human being on Earth, there would be little need for surveillance or otherwise; civilization would indeed be on a direct path to being the best it can possibly be which is essentially what life should be about in the first place.

Isaiah Schultz
September 23, 2011